UK Defence Forum

One missed, Two hit. Heres the one that missed;

I remember am almost identical incident during the Gulf war, in Israel. The Patriot looked as if it was tracking something that has already passed it and followed it into the ground.

More action in Middle East - Israel/Gaza Sunday

Israeli launched a at least three separate salvos of missiles from their Iron Dome batteries, ELM-2084 3D radar; launchers with 20 Tamir missiles; battle management; control unit. Tamir missile 3 m x 16 cm dia, 90 kg, 11 kg warhead, Mach 2.2, radial laser proximity fuse. Range dependent on the target's flight profiles, between 4 km & 17 km. Battle management/control unit programmed not launch if the projectile predicted to land in an unpopulated area.

Post analysis showed radar system was calibrated at too sensitive level as targets were high-trajectory machine gunfire, Tamir missiles cost 50-90,000 dollars each, so several $ million wasted but shows capability of a modern radar.

Videos show missile very maneuverable with snap turns as the missiles burn off their kinetic energy after their rocket motors burn out.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/WATCHI ... les-547088

indeid wrote:With Rapier being a manually tracked system live firing has a currency and qualification requirement which would burn through missiles. A support contract would still be needed along with regulars and training staff. That’s before any obselence issues need to be resolved. All need cash.

Ironically the move to Sky Sabre will reduce the live firing requirement

Lord Jim wrote:Rapier FSC is far more than a manually tracked system, and far from removed form the original standard.

That got it pretty much covered... except that the new-Gen missiles do not have that "manually tracked" feature that Rapier inherited from its previous generations, and therefore when something comes in low and the radars only catch it up too late... it will be "too late"

Isn't that a problem for many SAM systems. Mind you we have Starstreak to deal with late acquisition targets, a task for which it was designed and is better at the job than any other MANPADS. Also if we were to retain the Rapier FSC for defence of fixed locations, careful positioning of the radars etc. could mitigate this somewhat.

Lord Jim wrote:Isn't that a problem for many SAM systems. Mind you we have Starstreak to deal with late acquisition targets, a task for which it was designed and is better at the job than any other MANPADS. Also if we were to retain the Rapier FSC for defence of fixed locations, careful positioning of the radars etc. could mitigate this somewhat.

All of that true...

It comes down to numbers; and also which ones can be useful for formations on the move. So more thinking there, to be done about how to share the "simple" numbers.
- bearing in mind how far MANPADS will reach; the "up" number being much more important than the range they can do "level"

I agree, protecting the mobile formations is an issue, and it affects most NATO nations. Strangely it is the ex-Warsaw Pact member that seem to be best equipped, with them retaining far more mobile SP SAM and SPAAG than other members, even receiving ex German and Dutch Gepards when their original owners retired them. More importantly our possible opponents, especially Russia possesses a very extensive and integrated AD network that will make any air operations a challenge for NATO's Air Planners.

The USA is scrambling to reintroduce a more effective mobile Air Defence System, but this appears to be mainly reinventing versions of proposals that originate in the 1980s and 1990s. The solution for the British Army? A more mobile, under armour version of Sky Sabre? But as pointed out number matter just as much. The current levels of Starstreak are probably just adequate to the Army's needs but the current orders for Sky Sabre fall far short.

So to foster some discussion, if possible.

One of the things that emerged from the tension over the strikes was Russia stating they would "target launch sites."

This essentially stated outright, "we will strike RAF Akrotiri".

If that had happened, the island would have defended entirely on a Type 45 being present, and I am not certain if there was. Even ground based CAMM isn't exactly up to the task of engaging that sort of incoming, and Type 45's will become ever rarer to see where they want to be once the carrier is on the go.

In many ways, one could say this is an example that "if we're even in that sort of situation, there will be allies with Patriots to cover it" is no longer an accurate measure. There weren't, and the escorts were out at sea, unable to park beside an island in an obvious area, they had their own tasks.

Akrotiri was, for that portion of tension, completely defenceless.

Is this a stark reminder that solid ground based anti-air that can be forward deployed on vulnerable areas is no longer something that can be ignored? An indicator that SAMP/T really ought to be considered?

I have no real conclusion of my own yet on whether it is or isn't, but I'd like to throw it out there, see what people think on this interesting situation that developed in throwing a light on the UK's ability to defence itself from bombardment.

Air Defence is most certainly one of the most notable weaknesses of the UK in any sort of high end warfare scenario. The only area defence regiment is both ill equipped to do much and, arguably, based in an absurd position, where no one needs it to be.

Of course, of course. We assume to always have time to redeploy batteries around. I know.

Gabriele wrote:Of course, of course. We assume to always have time to redeploy batteries around. I know.

This indeed the bit that stands out to me about this. For years it was always "We'll use the Type 45s", "We'll have allies."

In the closest the UK has ever come to needing to genuinely watch out for air attack from long range missiles, none of that was available around RAF Akrotiri at all.

I do believe the "We'd always have..." arguement looks a lot weaker than it used to be. The world moves damn fast these days.

As the strike was apart of an allied effort, is it not likely that one of the allied assets such as a French frigate was acting as a guard ship for incoming against the airfield? We dont know exactly where the Type 45 was, but it was at the least as close as Greece, it may have been used, but if it wasn't then it was most likely deemed not necessary.

Minor point maybe but there have been several reports that a Type 45 was in attendance.

RetroSicotte wrote:"We'll use the Type 45s", "We'll have allies."

In the closest the UK has ever come to needing to genuinely watch out for air attack from long range missiles, none of that was available around RAF Akrotiri at all.

But the newspapers assured us... that there was one, in-situ

Like the joint-doctrine AD said that the T45 "bubble" will be as effective over land, as it would be over the sea part of the same bubble.
- those were the days when the write-ups were for "no need for carriers"

Just as the US has Ageis ashore is there not the capacity to duplicate the T45 system but have it on land ?

The Falklands, Akrotiri, Orkney/Shetland, Southeast England. A few of said system at strategic points could cover the UK & other strategic locations around the world.

Dahedd wrote:Just as the US has Ageis ashore is there not the capacity to duplicate the T45 system but have it on land ?

There is the facility on Portsdown Hill at Portsmouth which with the addition of some Sylver VLS could be made into an 'Aegis Ashore type' facility.

But really if we wanted to do that it would make more sense to buy SAMP/T batteries and deploy as required.

http://www.matthewflintham.net/parallel-landscapes-7/

Couldn't we ask the French, in this era of co-operation to lend us/deploy one or more batteries of their SAMP/T to Cyprus to protect the UK Sovereign Bases. I mean we have be helping them in Africa.

Lord Jim wrote:Couldn't we ask the French, in this era of co-operation to lend us/deploy one or more batteries of their SAMP/T to Cyprus to protect the UK Sovereign Bases. I mean we have be helping them in Africa.

The basic training of Mamba is the section, one system = one section. One section has four truck-mounted launchers. Each launcher has 8 missiles. One section aligns 32 missiles. One squadron = two sections, so 64 missiles.

The Air Force has committed to be able to provide two squadrons, so four systems, permanently to the Army for protect a possible deployment outside. So it's possible.

The Italian Army has commanded six systems, so the United Kingdom can ask to Italy and France one squadron each, I think.

Aren't the operations in Syria under NATO? Even if not if things get any hotter I am sure either Italy and France would respond positively to a request for deployment of Air Defence assets, as would the USA given the importance of Cyprus. We could even ask the Greeks, which would really stir up the Turkish President!!

Lord Jim wrote:Aren't the operations in Syria under NATO

I dont think so. It is more of an independent operation that we cooperate on with close allies.

Lord Jim wrote:Couldn't we ask the French, in this era of co-operation to lend us/deploy one or more batteries of their SAMP/T to Cyprus to protect the UK Sovereign Bases. I mean we have be helping them in Africa.

Agreed.
On the other hand, I think that HMG these days prays God that Assaid is foolish enough to attack SBAs with balistic missiles, to get a real casus belli against him.

abc123 wrote:On the other hand, I think that HMG these days prays God that Assaid is foolish enough to attack SBAs with balistic missiles, to get a real casus belli against him.

Is that the ballistic missiles that the we are never going to see and that we don't need BMD capability on T45 for ?

Caribbean wrote:

abc123 wrote:On the other hand, I think that HMG these days prays God that Assaid is foolish enough to attack SBAs with balistic missiles, to get a real casus belli against him.

Is that the ballistic missiles that the we are never going to see and that we don't need BMD capability on T45 for ?

Nope, I was saying that: a) those that have balistic missiles are afraid to use them against the UK because of fear of US/NATO attack, b) some others have them, but they are not such danger for UK ( can't reach the UK, like Iranian, and also A applies ) and c) some other might ( like China ) but they are a threat to the RN only if HMG want's to meddle there ( and it shouldn't IMHO ) and USA will have to have a lead there in defence from Chinese missiles anyway.

abc123 wrote:can't reach the UK, like Iranian,

Iran can put satellites into orbit, so they can definitely build ICBMs if they want to. Whether they can yet carry an effective payload is, of course, debatable. Secondly, there are targets much closer to Iran than the UK, some of them crewed by British sailors and others by allies. Iran has a number of ballistic missiles designed to attack naval targets
Also, an interesting quote for your quiet contemplation

GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost"

Frenchie wrote:the United Kingdom can ask to Italy and France one squadron each, I think.

Yep.
- and in the same go ask Germany to "do one better on : supporting, but not participating"?

Lord Jim wrote: We could even ask the Greeks, which would really stir up the Turkish President!!

Heh-heh, they did buy the previous version from Russia... so let's go and ask!

Caribbean wrote: The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost"

Errr, have you not noticed the fuming by the Russian ambassador to Denmark... and then we've got the Dutch vessels as well; where else would they be
- c'on UK: pull your school boy socks up, and join the gang

Caribbean wrote:

abc123 wrote:can't reach the UK, like Iranian,

Iran can put satellites into orbit, so they can definitely build ICBMs if they want to. Whether they can yet carry an effective payload is, of course, debatable. Secondly, there are targets much closer to Iran than the UK, some of them crewed by British sailors and others by allies. Iran has a number of ballistic missiles designed to attack naval targets
Also, an interesting quote for your quiet contemplation

GAO report released Feb. 11, 2013 found that "SM-3 Block 2B interceptors launched from Romania would have difficulty engaging Iranian ICBMs launched at the United States because it lacks the range. Turkey is a better option, but only if the interceptors can be launched within 100 miles of the launch site and early enough to hit targets in their boost phase, an engagement scenario that presents a whole new set of challenges. The best basing option is in the North Sea, but making the SM-3 Block 2B ship compatible could add significantly to its cost"

Yes, Iran can build ICBMs and hit the UK, and the UK can hit Iran with ICBMs with nuclear bombs. Fair exchange?

Also, yes, I agree that neither the missiles nor location in Romania isn't great.

And as for attacking bahrein or other Gulf countries, I think that Trump and May every night are kneeling near their bed ( like that maid in You rang M'lord?, forgot her name ) and prey for Iran or Syria to do something stupid like that.