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.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Jun 2018, 21:20

Cheers for the details.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 28 Jun 2018, 12:48

The LM MHTK, Miniature Hit to Kill, no warhead, directly destroy enemy targets through kinetic energy, a much cheaper missile and variation of thinking behind the longer range 7 km Starstreak.

MHTK under development by LM for the US Army Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program, IFPC, Indirect Fire Protection Capability / C-RAM, counter-artillery, rocket and mortar threats and UAVs

US Army EAPS program given high priority after Russian artillery attack for three minutes July 2014 when elements of four Ukrainian brigades only 9 km from border were devastated by Russian BM-21 Grad MLRS using dual purpose improved conventional munitions, air dropped mines, top down anti-tank submuntions and thermobaric fuel/air explosives.

MHTK range >3km, 27 inches length, 1.6 inches dia., 5 lbs, cost target $16,000 per missile in 2006 dollars at specified quantities, ~ 25% inflation to 2018 say $20,000, very low cost in missile prices.

Rocket solid propellant motor with four small wings located at the front of the weapon provide guidance and stability during the flight and the rear section also features four tail fins for increased manoeuvrability

Semi-active radar guidance, lock-on at the acquisition point with an AESA radar 45° field of view in elevation angle and can cover a scan angle of up to 90°.

US Army plans to fire the MHTK from their new MML, Multi-Mission Launcher that can launch AIM-9X, Hellfire, MHTK & Stinger, The MML is capable of 360° rotation and 0-90° elevation. Consisting of 15 tubes, the MHTK can be quad packed to take a total of 60 MHTK missiles.

System
Missile, launcher, radar set and engagement control station. A radio / RF data link facilitates communication between the operator on the ground and the MHTK in-flight.


Future short range point defence dichotomy, missiles or lasers ?

US Army MHTK would be a possible replacement for the 1 km range Phalanx ashore or at sea, at moment USN taking alternative route by spending $299M FY19 on lasers including point defence systems.
In May 2019 USN looking for a hard kill self defence systems to physically shoot down incoming missiles that could go onto various transport, tanker, and other combat support aircraft, P-8A etc. with internal weight of 2,300 lbs or less that could be either missile or laser.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jun 2018, 16:31

NickC wrote:MHTK under development by LM for the US Army Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program, IFPC, Indirect Fire Protection Capability / C-RAM, counter-artillery, rocket and mortar threats and UAVs

US Army EAPS program given high priority after Russian artillery attack for three minutes July 2014 when elements of four Ukrainian brigades only 9 km from border were devastated by Russian BM-21 Grad MLRS using dual purpose improved conventional munitions, air dropped mines, top down anti-tank submuntions and thermobaric fuel/air explosives.



Great update, thanks. I think it was two bdes, but regardless it was 20% of the then mobilised strength and pretty much all of the AI they had. Given the fact that BM-21 Grad, up until then, was considered a pretty much obsolete system!

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Ron5 » 28 Jun 2018, 16:46

NickC wrote:the 1 km range Phalanx


Not hardly dude.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 29 Jun 2018, 12:08

To meet the US Army’s interim short-range air defense to fill an urgent capability gap in Europe they are planning to order 144 IM-SHORAD systems mounted on the Stryker for a total of four battalions by fiscal 2022.

Leonardo DRS with its partner Moog’s Reconfigurable Integrated weapons platform using the Raytheon MANPADS 8 km Stinger IR missile won contract beating Boeing-GDLS, Rafael’s Iron Dome and South Korean defense firm Hanwha’s Flying Tiger.

The US Army choose DRS to provide the mission equipment package because of the flexibility of its reconfigurable turret, to allow for growth opportunities should the threat changes that requires a new interceptor or another capability.

GDLS will fully integrate the SHORAD prototype by April 2019. The final prototypes will be delivered to the service by the first quarter of fiscal 2020.

It will include Raytheon’s new digital Stinger vehicle missile launcher and DRS appears to be using the Israeli RADA Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar (MHR) S-band, pulse doppler, software-defined, AESA antenna, extremely high elevation coverage, non-rotating, solid state, digital beam forming, receivers and pulse compression.

The MHR will work while on the move, which as far as I know is a first on a land vehicle in the SHORAD mode?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby RetroSicotte » 02 Jul 2018, 01:08

What a wonderful system, shares ammo with the Apaches too.

As Gabriel pointed out once long before, the M320 is a perfect "cheaper end" weapon to throw on MIVs, especially if they can be upgraded for a few SHORAD counter UAV elements.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Jul 2018, 01:46

What is the thing under armour cover, behind the driver windows?
- a 4th (spare) radar panel?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Jul 2018, 21:19

RetroSicotte wrote:What a wonderful system, shares ammo with the Apaches too.

As Gabriel pointed out once long before, the M320 is a perfect "cheaper end" weapon to throw on MIVs, especially if they can be upgraded for a few SHORAD counter UAV elements.


We could simply transfer the Starstreak turret form the Stormers to the Boxer, by modifying a number of mission modules. The same would go for a AGW carrier.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Jul 2018, 21:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What is the thing under armour cover, behind the driver windows?
- a 4th (spare) radar panel?


Are those "Radars" or part of an APS?

PapaGolf
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 21:43
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby PapaGolf » 03 Jul 2018, 22:15

Seen it on other variants too, looks like an air filter or similar.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jul 2018, 08:43

On the Swiss thread there is the budget figure (still to be divvied up between fighters and GBAD) and here https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=32425 are excerpts from a market survey (I guess to establish the cost benchmark for the performance sought for the GBAD component)
- interesting comments on CAMM (range, ceiling, energy for final manoeuvres), though the paragraph is so short that it would seem to indicate that a different class of system is being sought

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 04 Jul 2018, 10:09

Yesterday Reuters reported Japan has selected a version of Lockheed Martin's Long Range Discrimination Radar, LRDR, for Aegis Ashore, the competition for the radar system was from Raytheon's SPY-6.

A capability we do not have in the UK is ballistic missile defence. Japan is buying two Aegis Ashore systems, will likely cost at least twice as much as Japan’s initial estimate of $2 billion, to be deployed in 2023. Firing the SM-3 IIA hit to kill exo-atmospheric missile, Japan jointly developing with US, launched from the Mk 41 VLS and will be used in US and Japanese destroyers as well as Aegis Ashore in Poland and Rumania?

Background
LM was the supplier of the Burkes Flight I, II & IIA SPY-1 radars, in a major upset they lost out when USN chose the Raytheon for the Flight III with the AMDR/SPY-6 GaN S-band radar. Now in an about turn LM have beaten Raytheon with their SPY-6 radar.  

The LRDR is a GaN S-band radar. The US Missile Defense Agency, MDA, awarded LM a $784m contract in 2015 and the firm is on track to deliver the radar to Clear, Alaska in 2020. LM use dual polarisation/polarimetric tech to transmit and receive on both horizontal and vertical axis and compare the power and timing of energy returned to the radar from both the horizontal and vertical pulses, to better obtain information such as the size, shape, and composition of target to enable differentiation of decoys from nuclear warhead.
 
At SNA 2018 LM were advocating updating the USN Tico and Burke SPY-1 radars with their GaN TR/Ms based on the dual polarisation/polarimetric tech which would enable them to increase sensitivity and do away with internal the SPY-1 waveguides. 

LM are assisting Indra of Spain in developing a S-band AESA GaN radar presumably with same tech for the Spanish Navy's new F110 frigates to integrate with the new LM International Aegis Fire Control Loop via the Spanish CMS (replacing Aegis CMS) to control SM-2's/ESSM's.

May be LM will include the Indra radar (looks an equivalent to the USN Raytheon EASR), as part of their bid with BAE with the Type 26 in the Canadian Surface Combatant competition for 15 frigates, with the Canadian Navy standard LM Canada CMS. Was surprised Hunter using Aegis CMS and the requirement for Saab Australia CMS interface, had earlier assumed Hunter would be similar system to Spain's F110, with the new LM International Aegis Fire Control Loop interfacing with the Saab Australia 9LV CMS with the CEAFAR2 radar to control SM-2's and ESSM's.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby indeid » 04 Jul 2018, 21:14

ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Swiss thread there is the budget figure (still to be divvied up between fighters and GBAD) and here https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=32425 are excerpts from a market survey (I guess to establish the cost benchmark for the performance sought for the GBAD component)
- interesting comments on CAMM (range, ceiling, energy for final manoeuvres), though the paragraph is so short that it would seem to indicate that a different class of system is being sought


I am always amazed that some people think you can compare 'headline' range figures without knowing the profile of the target. In Anti Air Warfare more than most areas the targets behaviour has a big say in the effective range of your weapon system. The engagements zones for front hemisphere shots compared to a tail chase are massive.

You don't just draw a 25km circle around a CAMM platform!

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby RetroSicotte » 05 Jul 2018, 08:52

indeid wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Swiss thread there is the budget figure (still to be divvied up between fighters and GBAD) and here https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=32425 are excerpts from a market survey (I guess to establish the cost benchmark for the performance sought for the GBAD component)
- interesting comments on CAMM (range, ceiling, energy for final manoeuvres), though the paragraph is so short that it would seem to indicate that a different class of system is being sought


I am always amazed that some people think you can compare 'headline' range figures without knowing the profile of the target. In Anti Air Warfare more than most areas the targets behaviour has a big say in the effective range of your weapon system. The engagements zones for front hemisphere shots compared to a tail chase are massive.

You don't just draw a 25km circle around a CAMM platform!

That article's ranges are wildly off for other programs by massively over exaggerating them anyway. For example, thinking SAMP/T can hit targets out to 600km.

The author clearly has some form of bias going on. For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Jul 2018, 09:45

RetroSicotte wrote:For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.


Javelin flies out to 4000+ meters (without loss of required manoeuvreing capacity) but is considered effective (for other reasons) out to about half of that distance
- fire a 7.62 (long) at the optimal angle and it will fly quite a way, too

I agree that the Swiss article wasn't consistent all the way, but on the other hand it highlighted what they would like to achieve with their budget
- if unachievable... just spend all the money on fighters!
- saves the headache, but I think it is quite wise what they have done: the slice of air defence, out of the total proc budget, is this much... technocrats, catch the ball and run with it!

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby indeid » 05 Jul 2018, 20:04

RetroSicotte wrote:The author clearly has some form of bias going on. For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.


So now we’re back to drawing (bigger) circles. I bet against some profiles the range of CAMM is significantly less than 25km.

So what profile is the target on allowing CAMM to achieve the required Pk at is a lot further than 25km range?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2426
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby RetroSicotte » 05 Jul 2018, 21:39

indeid wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:The author clearly has some form of bias going on. For one, Janes IHS once reported CAMM (not ER) reached out to 60km in testing. Granted THAT probably had low energy by that point, but it's definitely a given that CAMM is a lot further than 25km in its simplified reach statistics.


So now we’re back to drawing (bigger) circles. I bet against some profiles the range of CAMM is significantly less than 25km.

So what profile is the target on allowing CAMM to achieve the required Pk at is a lot further than 25km range?


I am aware of the inaccuracy of "just max range", but what I'm saying is that one way or the other, it is easy to misrepresent CAMM to push an agenda in an article, by ignoring that even in the most simplified measure (the "max range") it is often underreated.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby indeid » 06 Jul 2018, 07:43

RetroSicotte wrote:I am aware of the inaccuracy of "just max range", but what I'm saying is that one way or the other, it is easy to misrepresent CAMM to push an agenda in an article, by ignoring that even in the most simplified measure (the "max range") it is often underreated.


And thats my point, since you have no idea what profile was run to allow MBDA to make its 'beyond 25km' PR brochure how can you claim thats its a given that CAMM has a range 'a lot further'. The only way to compare systems is to calculate the pk for a given profile, thats where a lot of OA is needed. So while CAMM is advertised as being sensor agnostic the performance of the sensor may effect the pk on a given profile. The RN and Army will likely get different results between their sensors!

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 03 Aug 2018, 15:05

August 2, Sweden FMV (MOD) authorised to buy four Raytheon Patriot systems for ~ $3.2B in preference to French consortium Eurosam’s SAMP/T, delivery before 2025, originally budgeted at $1.2B.

Last May some Saudi Arabian Patriot missiles malfunctioned when fired against Yemen Houthi Scud missiles.

The new LM Patriot missile, advanced capability 3 missile segment enhancement, PAC-3 MSE, now in initial production, hit to kill warhead; larger dual pulse solid rocket motor; larger fins; and upgraded actuators and thermal batteries to accommodate increased performance, 12 missiles per launcher? July test achieved new distance record, not given, LM aiming to double production rate to meet demand from US Army, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sweden and UAE for total of 576 missiles.

US Army planning for a new generation radar with 360 degree coverage to integrate with Northrop Grumman Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, IAMD an Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System. 

LM, NG, Raytheon and Technovative Applications rec'd four year contracts for the new radar, which will be whittled down to three for a two year EMD phase contracts.

Bloodhound the last UK semi-equivalent system made redundant after end of cold war, UK, Australia, Singapore, Sweden & Switzerland, last operator Singapore who since acquired the Aster 30.

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 11 Aug 2018, 14:46

DefenseNews now reporting Sweden has signed binding contract for Patriot on 8th August

"the deal includes four Patriot Configuration 3+ Modernized Fire Units — the latest variant of the system — including 100 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhancement Missile-TBM missiles and 200 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) missiles for $3.2 billion // Cost is normally subject to change as negotiations unfold, so it’s unclear what the final cost of the purchase will be."

Sweden is buying 100 Raytheon MIM-104E GEM-T (PAC-2) missiles and 200 of the newer/expensive longer range Lockheed PAC-3 MSE HTK missiles capable of intercepting longer-range theatre ballistic missiles, ~ 100+ km AAW, ~35 km against ballistic missiles.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3178
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Aug 2018, 23:36

When you say "Fire Units", I assume you are referring to batteries rather than individual launch vehicles.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby indeid » 12 Aug 2018, 07:56

Lord Jim wrote:When you say "Fire Units", I assume you are referring to batteries rather than individual launch vehicles.


For Patriot the terms Fire Unit and Battery seem to be interchangeable. The Fire Unit could have one launcher or eight, but is capable of independent action, whereas the launcher on its own isn't. If the Patriot Battery could operate two radars and command vehicles, it could then form two independent Fire Units.

I have never seen it defined but have always taken a Fire Unit to be one complete system, so in UK terms a Stormer is a Fire Unit as a individual vehicle, while for Rapier it is all three components plumbed together (even though the launcher is capable of independent launch).

NickC
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 18 Aug 2018, 14:21

If understand correctly Swedish order for four Patriot systems. A Patriot missile battery can have up to a maximum of 16 launchers.

If pic correct shows Swedish fire unit / battery has 3 launchers each with four MIM-104E (PAC-2) canisters, 12 missiles per fire unit. The PAC-3 missile is the same length as the PAC-2 but only weighs a third at 686 pounds and only 10 inches in diameter which means that 16 PAC-3 missiles can fit on a single launcher, possible 48 missiles per fire unit.

(PAC-3 was developed for MEADS, planned as replacement for Patriot, but cancelled by Congress in preference to updating Patriot, though still favourite for German contract).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1270
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 19 Sep 2018, 21:35

I remember some discussions around CAMM-ER and its size relative to CAMM. Good picture of a segmented pair. The shared sections are clearly marked by bands. Looks like a pretty easy upgrade/enhancement for the Navy and Army.


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Ron5 » 19 Sep 2018, 23:29

Not if your VLS isn't long enough.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests