Ground Based Air Defence

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thx, that is v good!
If you increase the max[1] range, you usually increase the min[2] range too. A loss of EO and soft launch [3]may add time, but there is no need to slew[4] launcher/FCR to the target, so you claw some of it back.

1 =good
2 =bad
3 =soft launch will add time (I take it that loss of EO was not meant?)
4 = very true, BUT not true w/o the EO ... my whole point through this "discussion" even though t only getting going now

CIWS are more difficult[5] on land, as you are usually working with a larger defended area with more possible targets in than [6] a bubble round a self defending platform. Not against a return [7] to AD guns, but would rather [8] expand the current systems.

[5] yes, no tree tops, contours at sea
[6] on land, you can disperse. At sea, the self-defending bubble (for the "concentration") makes evident sense
[7] I am not advocating; hence the "joke" about the MANPAD at the ready
[8] the crux of the matter: How?

[Ron5]

@ACC

Even more confused. You keep insisting the "real" vehicle has only one mast when it clearly has two.

As for Phalanx for the last mile, CAMM is unguided during the boost phase which takes about a half mile. The Phalanx on ships is there partly to cover that (Phalanx also has an anti-surface role). Has nothing to do with radar range or any other of your weird theories.

And for that same reason, yes a manpad would be a good idea for land CAMM although the UK is addressing that issue with Giraffe on a tall mast. Fully extended Giraffe is about 12m high so could "see" an incoming ground hugger at about 40 km distance. More than enough time to react. Obviously terrain affects that number but I would think "pop ups" not to be too much of a threat.

EO is for operating in quiet mode i.e zero emissions. Not as effective as radar but undetectable.

[indeid]

And for that same reason, yes a manpad would be a good idea for land CAMM although the UK is addressing that issue with Giraffe on a tall mast. Fully extended Giraffe is about 12m high so could "see" an incoming ground hugger at about 40 km distance. More than enough time to react. Obviously terrain affects that number but I would think "pop ups" not to be too much of a threat.

Pop ups are always a risk, and 40km might be the book answer but when you do the radar bugsplats you rarely get near that. You always get terrain issues and the lower lobes can take a lot of processing to clear the clutter, which may further alter detection rates. You can plonk your sensor on top of a hill, but that can be a risk!

Main defence for this is that it is likely to be defending a fixed point, so hopefully should be aware of the threat direction and/or leakers.

Be interesting to see what the Falklands does to a 12m mast........

[Lord Jim]

I wonder how dispersed a CAMM battery will be deployed out in the field? IF far enough apart hey should be able to cover each others dead zones at launch. The UK does have a very good MANPADS to deal with "Pop ups" in the form of Starstreak which was designed for that purpose though.

[Dahedd]

I'd still suggest getting some CTA 40mm RAPIDFIre systems is a no brainer. Same gun as the Warrior & Ajax, just airbursting ammo. Great for engaging uavs & choppers. Slap it on the rear of a Warthog (save selling them off)

[Ron5]

Be interesting to see what the Falklands does to a 12m mast........

[shark bait]

I'd still suggest getting some CTA 40mm RAPIDFIre systems is a no brainer. Same gun as the Warrior & Ajax, just airbursting ammo. Great for engaging uavs & choppers. Slap it on the rear of a Warthog (save selling them off)

Definitely need a lower cost option to hard kill UAV's or the army will end up sucked dry killing cheapo drones from Alibaba with £200,000 missiles.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

@ACC

Even more confused. You keep insisting the "real" vehicle has only one mast when it clearly has two.

You should read what I said, before you start to argue with yourself.

Then you go on to paraphrase what I have said on many occasions (mainly in discussions with you ) and add some weird theories to make the whole thing garbled. The last mile problem (factor in the approach speed and multiple weapons launch) and you can equate the last mile and the first half kilometer in the context - as well what complicated factors on land can enter as complications. Of which we, by now, have had a good discussion
- please do, by all means, repeat the same thing again BTW; did you find the EO, or is the case - still - that only one mast has anything installed on it? If it is a problem with memory, not with understanding, then please refer to the quote that starts this post

[RetroSicotte]

I'd still suggest getting some CTA 40mm RAPIDFIre systems is a no brainer. Same gun as the Warrior & Ajax, just airbursting ammo. Great for engaging uavs & choppers. Slap it on the rear of a Warthog (save selling them off)

Definitely need a lower cost option to hard kill UAV's or the army will end up sucked dry killing cheapo drones from Alibaba with £200,000 missiles.

Using the Warthogs for that is an awesome concept. It also adds a good bit more 'light' firepower to a given area.

Too much sense to ever be bought!

[Ron5]

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

@ACC

Even more confused. You keep insisting the "real" vehicle has only one mast when it clearly has two.

You should read what I said, before you start to argue with yourself.

Then you go on to paraphrase what I have said on many occasions (mainly in discussions with you ) and add some weird theories to make the whole thing garbled. The last mile problem (factor in the approach speed and multiple weapons launch) and you can equate the last mile and the first half kilometer in the context - as well what complicated factors on land can enter as complications. Of which we, by now, have had a good discussion
- please do, by all means, repeat the same thing again BTW; did you find the EO, or is the case - still - that only one mast has anything installed on it? If it is a problem with memory, not with understanding, then please refer to the quote that starts this post

Your written English is so poor I really do have trouble understanding your questions. I don't know if the UK configuration is equipped with EO. I also don't know for sure that the 2nd mast is for EO. Gabriele says it is but I've not seen an independent confirmation. I don't think the vehicle parked outside DSEI makes any statement either way. Why would it be equipped with a 2nd mast if nothing was to be attached to it?

[marktigger]

a gun system would be interesting the RAF Aux had the oerlikon for a number of years. HVM then CAMM cover the SHORAD but we could do with a fixed system like the old bloodhound and ASTER might fit that role very well.

[whitelancer]

we could do with a fixed system like the old bloodhound and ASTER might fit that role very well.

Not sure a fixed system is such a good idea


A mobile system on the other hand does make sense.

[Dahedd]

Best place for a fixed system would be at existing RAF air bases. Surely some type of shore based T45 system makes sense.

[SKB]

Best place for a fixed system would be at existing RAF air bases. Surely some type of shore based T45 system makes sense.

How about one at Portsdown Hill, Portsmouth ?!

[Zealot]

How about the possibility of integrating Aster 30 into LEAPP Skykeeper.

LEAPP.jpg

[Dahedd]

Best place for a fixed system would be at existing RAF air bases. Surely some type of shore based T45 system makes sense.

How about one at Portsdown Hill, Portsmouth ?!

That's exactly what I had in mind. I remembered seeing that pic before.

[Lord Jim]

It does make sense for the UK to adopt a long range SAM that is mobile, but we simply don't have the money. Same old story.

[whitelancer]

A fixed system makes no sense at all, to make it survivable you would have to deploy the missiles in well dispersed, hardened and camouflaged silos. They would need to be connected to multiple,well concealed and hardened control centres, add in numerous dummy silos etc. and at worst you will force an enemy to expend considerable effort to put it out of action. This still leaves the problem of the radars and how to protect them. A fixed radar is fine for day to day operations but it is unlikely to last long against a serious attack, so a number of mobile radars would also be required.
The only sensible choice is a mobile system which you can deploy where and when you want. But as we don't have the money for either its a mute point.

[Ron5]

How about the possibility of integrating Aster 30 into LEAPP Skykeeper.

The 2nd photo isn't LEAP or CAMM.

[Zealot]

How about the possibility of integrating Aster 30 into LEAPP Skykeeper.

The 2nd photo isn't LEAP or CAMM.

Oh... wrong picture That has been there all this time

[The Armchair Soldier]

Some Land Ceptor related news here. Dubious source with a bit of a misleading title but posting for interest.

Britain buys Israeli ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system for Falklands

[ArmChairCivvy]

Some Land Ceptor related news here. Dubious source with a bit of a misleading title but posting for interest.

Britain buys Israeli ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system for Falklands

technology [Iron Dome paid for by US cash, and Raytheon retains/ shares the rights];will provide us with the main computerized system that will connect our modern radar [ Saab AMB, likely to be, to a large part, manufactured in the Oz] with the launchers [MBDA] of the air defence system [Brits operating it] to strengthen the protection of the Falkland Islands

[Lord Jim]

From what I have read it is not "Iron Dome" being bought but a system that uses some of its components. The Missiles being used for example have a far greater range.

[indeid]

Lost track of the names, but I think the whole system is called Sky Sabre, and can either consist of two components, the G-AMB radar (Giraffe) connected direct to the MBDA launcher (Land Ceptor) or three components, with the Rafael BMC4I commanding a network of G-AMB radars and MBDA launchers.

At a push you could say that the Sky Sabre BM system is from Iron Dome.

Three different componants from three different companies could be interesting, suppose it depends on who is Prime or the Integration authority.

[benny14]

I am hoping the British army jumps on board with the CAMM-ER missile. It would give us a much needed medium range air-defense capability.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/ground-base ... nce/emads/

From the attached downloadable document on that page it states - "Each launcher is scaleable and can carry multiple CAMM or CAMM-ER missiles, providing coverage against multiple simultaneous threats. The launchers are highly mobile with excellent off-road capability."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-relea ... -unveiled/

"Land Ceptor is the launch configuration of the Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions (EMADS) stable"

"The increased payload space provides greater flexibility in mission equipments carried, including – power generation, fire control electronics, on-board command and control (C2), missile datalink, radio communications and optional EO/IR sensor modules all available for installation. These systems provide flexibility for the launcher to act as an independent fire unit, as well as in a networked battery configuration. This increased payload could also be used to carry the extended range CAMM-ER interceptor, providing air defence out to 40km+ for those customers that require greater range."

Seems like it will come down to money, are we prepared to purchase CAMM-ER stocks in addition to our regular CAMM missiles.