UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 22 Apr 2017, 12:09

mr.fred wrote:
marktigger wrote:which is why Starstreak should have had a blast fragmentation warhead not the darts.
But when Startstreak came in Drones weren't that popular.
To beat drones you need a variety of systems starting with ESM to detect them passivly then systems to jam or spoof them then guns/missiles to take them out. Phalanx M167 or Gepard would be good platforms

Starstreak had darts because it was intended to deal with attack helicopters. Short flight times and the ability to deal with a hardened target were important.
The sort of drones than short range systems are interested in are small, hard to hit but fragile and slow. Lasers, proximity or, in a pinch, time fused shells are what you want for a hard kill mechanism. Phalanx and Gepard are hit to kill unless they've upgraded the guns and ammo.


And why on Blowpipe you had a shaped charge warhead and 2 fuse settings impact and proximity (which turned it into blast fragmentation)

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 22 Apr 2017, 15:14

marktigger wrote:And why on Blowpipe you had a shaped charge warhead and 2 fuse settings impact and proximity (which turned it into blast fragmentation)


We're lucky in that regard. We've got Starstreak for hard targets and LMM for others.

But 35mm+ seems to be the way forward for gun based systems. The potential for decent, cheap air burst is what we need. Thales RapidFire with the CT40 makes a lot of sense. Marksman with its 35mm would have made sense back in the day.Lasers and ESM/ECM have a part to play but guns have other roles other than countering UAV's.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Dahedd » 22 Apr 2017, 17:52

Dedicated Rapidfire vehicle using surplus AS90 or Warrior chassis?
Or a new build based on Ajax or a version slapped on the back of a truck?

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby LordJim » 22 Apr 2017, 19:15

Few western Armies have SP AA Guns nowadays. The Gepards are gone, sold or scrap as has the 20mm Vulcan and French 30mm. WE are simply not kitted out for or it seems planning for dealing with UAV etc. used by an opponent. WE have has a monopoly for decades and any counter measures have been given low priority with MANPADS probably being written in to plans as the solution. As pointed out many of the SAM systems in place can deal with UAVs but it is the small ones that worry me as they will be hard to spot/hear and the first thing our troops may know about being observed is the detonation of mortar bombs on the positions. Verging on Sci-fi but could a backpack Milli-metric radar system be developed to give troops awareness of small UAVs in their vicinity? If you can fit a MM seeker in a Brimstone, surely a rotating version could be carried, giving an audible alert and cueing through an eye piece. Next, laser guided SAMs have been around for quite a while such as the RBS-70. Could a system be developed using a 70mm guided rocket as a sort of LAW/SAM handed out to troops. I think laser guidance is the way to go due to the low speed of many UAVs and the poor heat signature they give off. Of course both these suggestions could also be vehicle mounted.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby mr.fred » 22 Apr 2017, 20:19

I look askance at the idea of a dedicated anti-drone vehicle in a similar way that I do dedicated demolition tanks. It's a capability that it does only slightly better than other, more general purpose, vehicles that would already be part of the battlegroup, but comes in such small numbers that you can almost guarantee that they will never be where they are needed and always end up where they are a liability.

If we are looking at these very small drones that are cheap enough that they aren't worth a SAM, then you need the capability right up at the front. If you are looking at 30mm+ auto cannon, there are frontline combat vehicles that already mount them and already have sophisticated fire control and sensors. Modern IFVs (including Ajax) have the gear and the position to be effective. It might need an additional alerting sensor or software to use the extant sensors. Part of Ajax's job is as a counter-recce screen, isn't it?

I wouldn't think that using an emitting sensor would be sensible though. No need to send drones to pinpoint your position if you're happy to light it up for anyone with a mildly competent EW capability.

Oh, and western armies have got rid of gun-armed SPAA because it isn't very effective against anything its expected to deal with anymore. Even the Russians, who still have AA guns, double up with missiles as well.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 23 Apr 2017, 09:38

mr.fred wrote:I wouldn't think that using an emitting sensor would be sensible though. No need to send drones to pinpoint your position if you're happy to light it up for anyone with a mildly competent EW capability.


The man portable radar has existed since the 1960's. We currently use the M-Star and that will pick up helicopters and slow moving fixed wing. In service in 1991, upgraded in 2005. Blighter also manufacture man pack radars, their B.202 is particularly interesting as it includes an E/O package. We know that Blighter radars will pick up commercial UAV's as they've integrated it into their AUD's anti UAV system that SF are using in Syria and Iraq. The B.202 may have the less capable radar though..It looks like man portable radars have settled on a size of 30kg. They must be stationary for use as well.

http://www.blighter.com/news/press-rele ... ation.html

Agreed on the Ajax (and the upgraded Warrior turret). I do hope they've actually got sufficient traverse speed and elevation to be a threat to low altitude air vehicles. I suppose the software will need to have a lead function for the targetting..

It's also unclear if ADAD's will pick up small UAV's, can't see there being much of a thermal signature. It makes the decision to not equip AJAX with a proper mast mounted sensor with radar and optics even more confusing, especially after TRACER showed just how much use they are.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby mr.fred » 23 Apr 2017, 12:30

Timmymagic wrote:Agreed on the Ajax (and the upgraded Warrior turret). I do hope they've actually got sufficient traverse speed and elevation to be a threat to low altitude air vehicles.

Given that the sort of drone we're worried about travel at 100kph, tops? That's getting on to 30m/s. At 100m that's less than 1/3 of a radian per second or 19 seconds for a complete rotation. That doesn't seem that challenging.

Timmymagic wrote:I suppose the software will need to have a lead function for the targetting

If it didn't I would be concerned.

Timmymagic wrote:It's also unclear if ADAD's will pick up small UAV's, can't see there being much of a thermal signature

ADAD is fairly old technology now, I'm sure a current version would be somewhat more effective.
Picking up small drones would be difficult, but on the other hand the cheap ones are pretty dumb and have to fly at altitude (unless controlled*) to avoid running into things. Since the signature is dependent on contrast, not simply the amount of heat generated by the object, running at altitude means silhouetting it against the sky, which makes for a fairly good thermal contrast with most objects.

*and if they are controlled, then EW comes into play.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 23 Apr 2017, 13:42

mr.fred wrote:Given that the sort of drone we're worried about travel at 100kph, tops? That's getting on to 30m/s. At 100m that's less than 1/3 of a radian per second or 19 seconds for a complete rotation. That doesn't seem that challenging.


What worries me is we're all thinkng of the present threat of commercial quadcopters rather than higher speed fixed wing units. What if someone starts fielding a Fireshadow equivalent? How fast does that do in it's terminal dive?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Gabriele » 23 Apr 2017, 13:46

It makes the decision to not equip AJAX with a proper mast mounted sensor with radar and optics even more confusing, especially after TRACER showed just how much use they are.


I'm still hoping the Ground Based Surveillance sub-variant will have mast-mounted sensors. It had to have, in earlier plans, and it is about the only thing i can think about that would justify a sub-variant with that definition.

Unless it gets quietly cancelled. Nobody really said much so far about sub-variants mission fits.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby mr.fred » 23 Apr 2017, 16:17

Timmymagic wrote:
What worries me is we're all thinkng of the present threat of commercial quadcopters rather than higher speed fixed wing units. What if someone starts fielding a Fireshadow equivalent? How fast does that do in it's terminal dive?

In my case at least it's a deliberate focus. Fire Shadow was a guided missile of a kind, and considerably more costly than the small drones. As such, it's more likely to be worth using a missile on. Plus, as it's also considerably bigger, it's something that you would be able to hit with a missile.

As for the speed in a terminal dive, I wouldn't worry about that anymore than I'd worry about any kind of munition, be it a missile, shell or bomb, on it's terminal trajectory. That said, if someone wants to make it easier to hit by having it stooging around at low speed beforehand, I might take that opportunity to bring it down with existing assets.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 23 Apr 2017, 19:18

Not something I've come across before, but the US has just bought a 'large' number of them for forces in Iraq and Syria. It only weighs 5lb's and can detect and jam commercial UAV's. It won't provide cueing by the looks of it, but it does put a basic, small handheld capability out there.

http://www.radiohilltech.com/radio-hill ... onebuster/

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby LordJim » 24 Apr 2017, 00:26

Who wants to bet the nasty people will be trying to get their hands on these or something similar through civilian means.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Caribbean » 24 Apr 2017, 01:26

LordJim wrote:Who wants to bet the nasty people will be trying to get their hands on these or something similar through civilian means.

If they are being sent to Iraq and Syria, then they will shortly be widely available :roll:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 24 Apr 2017, 13:53

how good are the giraffe at detecting this type of drone

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11033
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Apr 2017, 21:05

Timmymagic wrote:when we chanced upon a number of captured, modern, 35mm and Skyguard we put them into service with the RAuxF straight away.


"Aux" in that is the hint, as is the location of that unit, c lose to Boscombe Downs: They were used for (RAF) training against such air defences (including experimentation, not just training).

Timmymagic wrote: Marksman with its 35mm would have made sense back in the day.

- and still today
- the AHEAD round was developed for them; boy, that is a big and fast pump-action shotgun!

The problem with guns, though, is that you would need them everywhere (in thousands) to be effective.
- even the Russian guns are on systems dedicated to protecting logs centers, higher-up command posts from tree-hugging cruise missiles. So if the OpFor is thinking of "wasting" a cruise missile on a target, then the justification for a gun system to be right there (for the last mile defences) also exists

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 28 Apr 2017, 09:46

marktigger wrote:how good are the giraffe at detecting this type of drone


I guess it depends on the Giraffe. The AMB is very capable, so should detect them. The 4 with it's GaN is capable of being used as an artillery locating radar so should pick them up. Not sure about the Blindfire radars though. The problem will be how close those assets will be to the frontline as that's where these things will be given their short operating range.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 28 Apr 2017, 09:49

ArmChairCivvy wrote:"Aux" in that is the hint, as is the location of that unit, c lose to Boscombe Downs: They were used for (RAF) training against such air defences (including experimentation, not just training).


I thought they were mainly deployed around Waddington?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11033
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Apr 2017, 10:05

Timmymagic wrote:depends on the Giraffe. The AMB is very capable, so should detect them. The 4 with it's GaN


I wonder who has them in use (us, Oz...?)

As that is the next gen radar, India is playing their normal tricks again and (recognising the lead that Saab has in the field) tempting the Swedes to a fighter co-operation where an installed GaN - on a fighter plane - would be part of the brief
- who cares if it is doable
- just milk the secrets, then can the "joint" project and use the knowledge gained for something else

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 28 Apr 2017, 10:13

We've got AMB. The Giraffe 4 is very new. It may get procured in the future to fulfill the weapon locating (and more role).

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 28 Apr 2017, 16:38

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:when we chanced upon a number of captured, modern, 35mm and Skyguard we put them into service with the RAuxF straight away.


"Aux" in that is the hint, as is the location of that unit, c lose to Boscombe Downs: They were used for (RAF) training against such air defences (including experimentation, not just training).

Timmymagic wrote: Marksman with its 35mm would have made sense back in the day.

- and still today
- the AHEAD round was developed for them; boy, that is a big and fast pump-action shotgun!

The problem with guns, though, is that you would need them everywhere (in thousands) to be effective.
- even the Russian guns are on systems dedicated to protecting logs centers, higher-up command posts from tree-hugging cruise missiles. So if the OpFor is thinking of "wasting" a cruise missile on a target, then the justification for a gun system to be right there (for the last mile defences) also exists


2 RAF Regt aux sqns at Waddington had them. the radars were still in use as height/speed cameras to make sure pilots followed the rules

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 28 Apr 2017, 18:48

marktigger wrote:2 RAF Regt aux sqns at Waddington had them. the radars were still in use as height/speed cameras to make sure pilots followed the rules


I think the Skyguard are still in use for that role.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11033
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Apr 2017, 20:23

The guns were sent to Oerlikon, for reconditioning; I presume they came back, too?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 28 Apr 2017, 21:58

I remember seeing one on salisbury plain at one of the camps.....I wonder who they were sold on to.

S M H
Member
Posts: 385
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby S M H » 30 Apr 2017, 12:14

marktigger wrote:I remember seeing one on Salisbury plain at one of the camps.....I wonder who they were sold on to.

One twin 30 mm gun was outside Hanrattys scrap yard moss bay Workington some years ago. Prior to being cut up Must have been disposed of by Eskmales range. The waterproof plug of it now in my garden connecting my pond pump

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Old RN » 01 May 2017, 08:51

Sorry for my ignorance but when is the "Land Ceptor" coming into service? It will be great to see the land forces regain a decent air defence system for the first time since Thunderbird's were withdrawn.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests