Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

I don't think the UK is using EMADS.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by benny14 »

Ron5 wrote:I don't think the UK is using EMADS.

"Land Ceptor is the launch configuration of the Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions (EMADS) stable. EMADS brings together best-of-breed systems and technologies from across MBDA’s European base to save time, development costs and provide a flexible system for air defence provision."

"EMADS features a family of system components, including the common launcher developed for Land Ceptor. Also included are a flexible command and control system capable of being installed on the launcher, within Radars or within a separated Tactical Operations Centre (TOC). An example of a TOC can be seen at MBDA’s DSEI stand (S2-210)."

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

Image

As pictured. Right to left. All modular variants of the British HX-77 MANN truck. Saab Giraffe radar, Land Ceptor launcher and TOC command vehicle.

The launcher is modular and can be installed on a wide variety of vehicles. The CAMM-ER launcher would be the same, if the missile can not be fitted in the current CAMM tubes then it would be as simple as removing it and attaching the CAMM-ER version as that would be essentially the same, but with longer tubes.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

benny14 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I don't think the UK is using EMADS.

"Land Ceptor is the launch configuration of the Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions (EMADS) stable. EMADS brings together best-of-breed systems and technologies from across MBDA’s European base to save time, development costs and provide a flexible system for air defence provision."

"EMADS features a family of system components, including the common launcher developed for Land Ceptor. Also included are a flexible command and control system capable of being installed on the launcher, within Radars or within a separated Tactical Operations Centre (TOC). An example of a TOC can be seen at MBDA’s DSEI stand (S2-210)."

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

Image

As pictured. Right to left. All modular variants of the British HX-77 MANN truck. Saab Giraffe radar, Land Ceptor launcher and TOC command vehicle. Would be surprised if we are not using it, as it is basically what we are doing.
That picture must be from a UK demo event. To the left is a Lockheed Martin LEAPP Control Node on a HX60, so nothing to do with EMADS or Sky Sabre but likely there to be representative. The MBDA launcher on a HX77, where I assume there is a lot of commonality between Sky Sabre and EMADS. Then as you say the G-AMB radar, which i’m sure is on a SX45 and is also used by LEAPP. My guess is they took the chance to take some pics of real metal during a PR event and used equipment already in service to fill in the gaps.

The UK C2 system is not from MBDA and not been delivered.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

@benny

Just look up a few posts and you'll see that the UK is getting the command and control piece from Israel and is not using EMADS. I'm sure the launcher is common but that's just one component out of several.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by benny14 »

Ron5 wrote:Just look up a few posts and you'll see that the UK is getting the command and control piece from Israel and is not using EMADS. I'm sure the launcher is common but that's just one component out of several.
Fair enough on the EMADS. It is hard to understand what is going on sometimes considering the wordings of their press releases. Just though I would post several snippets of information I found from several official articles.

What do you think in regards to land ceptor using CAMM-ER?

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

If I understand the press releases correctly, the UK system will accept and be able to use either missile interchangeably. A stock of both would make sense to me. To be deployed based on circumstances. Maybe the Falklands based systems would be better suited for ER while the European based systems with the regular missile.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by jimthelad »

Other way around, the terrain in Falklands makes it nearly impossible to use the full engagement range unless you site all the batteries on West Falkland on the coast. It really is a hellish place to operate anything so point defence of key terrain/sites with GBAD and robust fast jet defence is the best way.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

I was thinking the greater altitude of the ER missile would be more beneficial in the Falklands.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by dmereifield »

Army Unveils Sky Sabre Air Defence System

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ystem.html

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder is it would be better is the Army made both regular RA regiment operate both Stormer/Starstreak and Sky Sabre to provide layered defence, and making it easier to deploy detachments containing both. Just a thought.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Have I just missed this part
" the command and the Rafael control electronics suite from which the system is operated. "
or is it new information, not released previously?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 already known. It also generated, a while ago, a number of wide-off-the-mark press reports that said the UK was "purchasing the Iron Dome missile battery", when the only piece being acquired was the flexible BMC4I system.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by benny14 »

Snippet on Sky Sabre from soldier magazine. In service by 2020.

"It not only offers us the ability to engage targets beyond visual range, but also to attack multiple platforms at the same time."

"Can intercept aerial targets including fixed wing, rotary and cruise missiles."

"This will take the Army from short to medium range, and is a truly integrated air defence system."

Final configuration still is:
1. Command and control system by Rafael Advance Defence Systems of Israel.
2. Sabb Giraffe agile multi-beam radar with 100km range.
3. Man SV 8x8 vehicle with eight missiles

Image

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by dmereifield »

benny14 wrote:Snippet on Sky Sabre from soldier magazine. In service by 2020.

"It not only offers us the ability to engage targets beyond visual range, but also to attack multiple platforms at the same time."

"Can intercept aerial targets including fixed wing, rotary and cruise missiles."

"This will take the Army from short to medium range, and is a truly integrated air defence system."

Final configuration still is:
1. Command and control system by Rafael Advance Defence Systems of Israel.
2. Sabb Giraffe agile multi-beam radar with 100km range.
3. Man SV 8x8 vehicle with eight missiles

Image
How many units are we getting?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

And was the initial batch of Giraffe radars only enough to set up in the Falklands?
- clearly every ( 1?) deploying bde should have this for cover
+ some Stormers to provide more range-restricted bubbles while on the move
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

I believe we are getting around twenty launch vehicles, equipping one RA Regiment. How many vehicle per battery and the make up of the majority I cannot find.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:around twenty launch vehicles
Well, we had some Giraffe radars for other uses, before. Then we ordered some better ones. Then we are putting the old ones through an upgrade cycle
... and not a clue what the total number will be, as in
http://www.army-technology.com/uncatego ... b-4656264/

Reverse calculation: 20 launcher units will be distributed in 3s or 4s,
so 5 (max 6) batteries
- next: how many to Falklands?
- the residual is the cover for the deploying bde: 1 battery at the ready; another relocating
Check Sum: 5, Falklands 3: Stanley; airbase; EW&S radar... are there more than one of them - and are they far apart?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Gabriele »

The plan was for four batteries. That would suggest 4 to 5 launchers for battery, which is in line with other SAM regiments within NATO, so seems reasonable. There are some 12 or 12 Giraffe radars, including 5/6 for 49 Bty (LEAPP).
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by dmereifield »

4 batteries of 4/5, that seems as fully low, is it?

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by indeid »

dmereifield wrote:4 batteries of 4/5, that seems as fully low, is it?
I doubt it’s that many. 16 Regt and Rapier is for the Falklands only nowadays, and Sky Sabre was originally GBAD-FI as a project name. All 4 Rapier Batteries don’t have allocated systems, there will be an operational fleet down the Falklands and then training systems rotated round the Batteries as they train up. Imagine SKy Sabre will be the same.

No doubt the UK based systems could be deployed on contingent operations if needed, but causing issues down stream. I imagine a contingent Sky Sabre capability will be an option on the table, but 16 would need to grow for that to be realised.

I believe the Armoured Bdes will keep the Stormers and Strike Bdes LML, with one Stormer Battery converting and a new Battery standing up. 16AA no doubt unchanged.

GBAD has been cut to the bone over the last 15 years.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

indeid wrote:GBAD has been cut to the bone over the last 15 years.
'Merica did the same; and now it is one of their 6 army priorities to build (back up)
- there's one more; tactical comms and backing, broader network, plus hardening it/ them
- we have that already, as a priority, but GBAD needs to move up!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Thing is with Both Sky Sabre (Assuming this becomes the default) and Star Streak we have two of the best missile systems available, just not enough of them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Star Streak we have two of the best missile systems available, just not enough of them.
Quite so. The priority for GBAD was so low ( a couple of years back) that the LMM order was funded by "converting" an order (from the same supplier) for more Star Streaks).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Quite so. The priority for GBAD was so low ( a couple of years back) that the LMM order was funded by "converting" an order (from the same supplier) for more Star Streaks).
Wasn't it worse than that? It was development and order of Starstreak 2 which had longer range.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: order of Starstreak 2 which had longer range.
Ohh! Development, too?

Sky Sabre won't be 100% proof against contour flying, so a quick reaction system against pop-up threats will also be required
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply