Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:
indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Big, slow moving/stationary targets. Funny kind of Rapier successor. Press release hints not too many will be bought.
Why a funny successor? Both wheeled, both require stationary firing so limited by set up times, both are radar guided.

Only loss is the EO tracking option, which I believe is an available option.
Mobility, agility, cost, numbers.

There was a tracked rapier and not all versions are radar guided.

And yes, brochure mentions EO option.
Tracked Rapier was removed in the early 90's and replaced by the Stormers.

A Rapier battery to defend a critical point is what, 4 to 6 Fire Units each of 3 trucks towing the trailers?

A FLAADS battery will likely have a C2 cabin with a dismounted secondary option, a few radars and 3-4 launchers covering a much larger area. I doubt the 8x8s are going to be maxed out so mobility should be ok, might even improve despite the weight increase. Since you can't drive Rapier above a crawl with the missiles fitted set up times could even increase. What are the mobility and agility concerns?

New systems are always more expensive up front than what they replaced, but keeping old kit going is expensive. The manual tracking element is very training heavy, needing lots of live firing to stay current, a need removed with CAMM so no need to trek up to the hebs for firing camps and only occasional system confirmatory firings are needed.

Rapiers only task is to protect MPA and has a single operational fleet, exactly the same as FLAADS, so while more kit would be good to deploy elsewhere it's an issue that already exists, not being introduced by the new kit.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by marktigger »

Ron5 wrote:
indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Big, slow moving/stationary targets. Funny kind of Rapier successor. Press release hints not too many will be bought.
Why a funny successor? Both wheeled, both require stationary firing so limited by set up times, both are radar guided.

Only loss is the EO tracking option, which I believe is an available option.
Mobility, agility, cost, numbers.

There was a tracked rapier and not all versions are radar guided.

And yes, brochure mentions EO option.
majority of rapier was radar guided.

tracked rapier was a nightmare to work on

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

I thought there was another radar as well with Land Ceptor. At the 1.18 mark in the video below.



What are the 2 masts for on Land Ceptor as well? One is for the data link, we know that much. The above video appears to show a square antenna that is now a dome for the data link. But is the other dome on the tweet below not a local radar? Or ADADS? (which looked a lot smaller on Stormer).


User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Gabriele »

The second mast is for a EO/IR turret, whichever one the customer selects.

The radar in the video at 1:18 is the one currently used by Rapier batteries. It could be retained as an interim solution, or not. CAMM is supposed to not care from which radar the targeting data comes, after all. It is not a given that Sky Sabre (four batteries are planned, by the way, with the Rafael MIC4AD as the control node) will relay just on Giraffe radars. Most Giraffe radars are part of the LEAPP battery to start with.

In the italian configuration with CAMM ER, the radar is not Giraffe but Kronos. More sensors can contribute.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Gabriele wrote:The second mast is for a EO/IR turret, whichever one the customer selects.
Cheers Gabi.

Is the UK getting the EO/IR turret or is the (admittedly far older) video representative? Is the EO/IR turret worth the additional cost? I'm guessing ROE may demand it.

I found it interesting that the images of the CAMM-ER solution looked very similar in size to CAMM canisters? Are they the same with a lot of spare space in the CAMM version?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Gabriele »

I'm not sure there is a real photo of EMADS with CAMM ER canisters fitted. In the CGI, the different lenght is noticeable. Image

There should be about 1 meter difference in lenght. Diameter of the canister is possibly the same: only the bottom half of the CAMM ER is fatter, at 190 versus 160 mm diameter. It seems to fit in exactly the same canister width overall, with the bulge arranged within the margin allowed by the non-folding part of the fins.

As for fitting EO/IR, i hope they specify it, but don't know what the plan is.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Big, slow moving/stationary targets. Funny kind of Rapier successor. Press release hints not too many will be bought.
Why a funny successor? Both wheeled, both require stationary firing so limited by set up times, both are radar guided.

Only loss is the EO tracking option, which I believe is an available option.
Mobility, agility, cost, numbers.

There was a tracked rapier and not all versions are radar guided.

And yes, brochure mentions EO option.
Tracked Rapier was removed in the early 90's and replaced by the Stormers.

A Rapier battery to defend a critical point is what, 4 to 6 Fire Units each of 3 trucks towing the trailers?

A FLAADS battery will likely have a C2 cabin with a dismounted secondary option, a few radars and 3-4 launchers covering a much larger area. I doubt the 8x8s are going to be maxed out so mobility should be ok, might even improve despite the weight increase. Since you can't drive Rapier above a crawl with the missiles fitted set up times could even increase. What are the mobility and agility concerns?

New systems are always more expensive up front than what they replaced, but keeping old kit going is expensive. The manual tracking element is very training heavy, needing lots of live firing to stay current, a need removed with CAMM so no need to trek up to the hebs for firing camps and only occasional system confirmatory firings are needed.

Rapiers only task is to protect MPA and has a single operational fleet, exactly the same as FLAADS, so while more kit would be good to deploy elsewhere it's an issue that already exists, not being introduced by the new kit.
How much heavier is one of these beasts compared with Rapier? How many is the army going to get? How much more expensive in money & men? The answers explain why it's strange to regard this as a Rapier replacement.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:Diameter of the canister is possibly the same
Not this old chestnut The travel/launch container for CAMM has exactly the same cross section as for CAMM-ER.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Gabriele wrote:The second mast is for a EO/IR turret, whichever one the customer selects.
Cheers Gabi.

Is the UK getting the EO/IR turret or is the (admittedly far older) video representative? Is the EO/IR turret worth the additional cost? I'm guessing ROE may demand it.

I found it interesting that the images of the CAMM-ER solution looked very similar in size to CAMM canisters? Are they the same with a lot of spare space in the CAMM version?
I don't know if the second mast is for EO, however the photo's showing the British Army config have it. It's not deployed but it's there.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Gabriele wrote:There should be about 1 meter difference in lenght. Diameter of the canister is possibly the same: only the bottom half of the CAMM ER is fatter, at 190 versus 160 mm diameter. It seems to fit in exactly the same canister width overall, with the bulge arranged within the margin allowed by the non-folding part of the fins.

This is the photo on a tweet that has got me confused. The picture in the bottom right is a UK MAN SV (including number plate), both masts up and CAMM-ER being fired (out of the admittedly tight squeeze fro length canister).


RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RetroSicotte »

Gabriele wrote: It is not a given that Sky Sabre (four batteries are planned, by the way, with the Rafael MIC4AD as the control node) will relay just on Giraffe radars. Most Giraffe radars are part of the LEAPP battery to start with..
How many individual trucks with the missiles would 4 batteries equate to?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Timmymagic wrote:is is the photo on a tweet that has got me confused. The picture in the bottom right is a UK MAN SV (including number plate), both masts up and CAMM-ER being fired (out of the admittedly tight squeeze fro length canister).
I should say, I know it says EMADS underneath, but it's a UK MAN SV?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Gabriele »

How many individual trucks with the missiles would 4 batteries equate to?
Don't think it has been publicized yet. But one would expect 4 to 8 launchers per battery.
The picture in the bottom right is a UK MAN SV (including number plate), both masts up and CAMM-ER being fired (out of the admittedly tight squeeze fro length canister).
Dimensions of the canisters seem correct. The top part of the canisters might not look like much, but it amounts to that extra meter. The base CAMM canister, as seen in the photos from DSEI, is shorter and does not extend out as far as the end of the frame. See here: Image



Rapier battery elements can be carried slung under a Chinook, while moving the elements of Sky Sabre in the same fashion might or might not be feasible. Chinooks do lift containers, but there are other factors at play.
Apart from that, Rapier batteries employ MAN SV HX60 trucks as the Rapier Support Vehicle. In practical terms, mobility on land won't be any worse.

Image

Key fact is that Rapier is no longer credible at all. It is way too limited a system in this day and age. CAMM will improve things by a lot, even though British Army air defence remains uncomfortably flattened on Short Range solutions.

If they can demonstrate Sky Sabre mobility by Chinook under slung, that will make for a truly brilliant upgrade.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Quite a big difference in mobility between a 4x4 truck towing a Rapier launcher and three 8 wheelers carrying a heavy containers.

I'm not a fan of fixed locations so close to the front line. Easily spotted and easily targeted.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Gabriele wrote:There should be about 1 meter difference in lenght. Diameter of the canister is possibly the same: only the bottom half of the CAMM ER is fatter, at 190 versus 160 mm diameter. It seems to fit in exactly the same canister width overall, with the bulge arranged within the margin allowed by the non-folding part of the fins.

This is the photo on a tweet that has got me confused. The picture in the bottom right is a UK MAN SV (including number plate), both masts up and CAMM-ER being fired (out of the admittedly tight squeeze fro length canister).

What are you confused about? The Launcher parked outside is labelled the UK configuration. It has regular CAMMs and I can see a second mast but not deployed so maybe, if it's EO, that's part of the package. The model on the stand is generic EMADS being pushed to several countries some of which have MAN trucks (like Australia).

Gabriele rightly has doubts about the three modules: launcher, radar & control center, being standard 20' container size. But they could be. If the control module is the same as the MBDA Platoon control center, that's already being advertised as standard. So they would all fit any standard container truck and would make them easy to transport in trains, boats & planes.

I can't help but suspect the UK diverged from its earlier config of a light launcher on a 4x4 to accompany light forces/lurk behind front lines, to the Italian config with room for bigger missiles as part of more substantial batteries. Would save a bunch of development and testing cash. If so, good. Probably work better down south too.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by marktigger »

can this system be lifted into position by helicopter like rapier?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:The model on the stand is generic EMADS being pushed to several countries some of which have MAN trucks (like Australia).
It was the number plate on the truck. It's a very accurate model sporting a UK military numberplate. It's just a model, probably recycled from a Land Ceptor display.

It does give me the briefest hope that we might get CAMM-ER one day though..

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The model on the stand is generic EMADS being pushed to several countries some of which have MAN trucks (like Australia).
It was the number plate on the truck. It's a very accurate model sporting a UK military numberplate. It's just a model, probably recycled from a Land Ceptor display.

It does give me the briefest hope that we might get CAMM-ER one day though..
Ah, got it!

I think your optimism might be rewarded. For the Falklands at least, I would think the ER would be a better choice for few few extra pennies.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

RetroSicotte wrote:How many individual trucks with the missiles would 4 batteries equate to?
I would be amazed if all the rotational batteries are equipped, moving equipment around sub-units as they go through training cycles seems to be standard now. If it is just replacing the Rapier task down South maybe an operational fleet down there of 3-4 launchers, 2-3 radars and 1-2 C2 node? Same back in the UK as a training and maintanence fleets. I would say a max of 10 launchers, 6 radars (think the LEAPP radars can be rotated in giving a total fleet around 12) and 3-4 C2 nodes. The C2 element may depend on how they manage the need for redundancy.
Ron5 wrote:Quite a big difference in mobility between a 4x4 truck towing a Rapier launcher and three 8 wheelers carrying a heavy containers.

I'm not a fan of fixed locations so close to the front line. Easily spotted and easily targeted.
But to get a defended area with Rapier equal to one FLAADS launcher you will need at least 3, and likely 4, Rapier Fire Units, which is at least 9 4x4 trucks towing trailers and a few landies for the CP instead of 3 8x8 trucks. The HX77 is a great wagon, especially if its only got 9-10tn on the back.

Rapiers job is defence of fixed critical points, it isn't moving about near the FLOT. The ideal posture for any GBAD system is to sit passive until targets are near the MEZ and then go active for the engagement. With FLAADS being connected by data links this will be easier than with the current system.

This sounds like a good system, longer range would be nice, it always is, but this is a useful addition to any air defence plan.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

I suspect the RAF would have that for breakfast. Hope I'm wrong.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:I suspect the RAF would have that for breakfast. Hope I'm wrong.
I hope they can have SHORAD for breakfast.

Although considering that an asthmatic Tornado with one engine out and a particularly fat Nav in the back can get above a Rapier MEZ, the improvement will be a marked one.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by marktigger »

with large semi fixed system like this the need for light airdefence equipped with more protable equipment increases. Systems Like Starstreak are much more portable and if the LMM missile is compatable become quite flexible.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I suspect the RAF would have that for breakfast. Hope I'm wrong.
I hope they can have SHORAD for breakfast.

Although considering that an asthmatic Tornado with one engine out and a particularly fat Nav in the back can get above a Rapier MEZ, the improvement will be a marked one.
CAMM-ER was advertised with a 3,000m ceiling.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote: 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......

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Gabriele »

It was 10.000 meters, not feet. These photos were taken from an earlier presentation in Italy, where EMADS is expected to replace Army and Air Force SHORAD batteries, complementing Stinger and SAMP-T.

Image

In italian, but you can easily spot the "10 Km". It says "from extremely low altitude to 10 Km".

Also, a photo of the KRONOS radar module demounted from the truck.

Image
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Post Reply