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.
Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Frenchie » 18 Dec 2016, 19:26

Tumbleweed wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:at the next level, v local anti-mortar/ counter-btry and AD FC radars


A far as I know this kit (the next two parts of my point) are scheduled to go out of service fairly soon?


Not sure about OSD for MAMBA, LCMR and ASP, but I thought they all had a good few years left. Outside of the LEAPP sensors what AD radars do land have now? Rapier is only in the Falklands and the HVM equipped units only have passive sensors.


About MAMBA, the DGA has notified the Eurosam consortium comprising MBDA and Thales of a contract to modernize the SAMP / T anti-aircraft defense system and the Aster 30 missiles. The Block 1 NT (for new technologies) will thus be equipped with a new self-steering device operating in Ka-band, while the current one transmits in Ku-band. This should allow the missile to detect and pursue faster targets. In terms of defense against ballistic missiles, this improvement will make it possible to intercept more long range missiles, about 1,500 km. More generally, the Aster Block 1NT program also aims to treat all the obsolescences that could be struck by the various components of the current Aster 30.
The first copies should be received by the Air Force from 2023.
This program is designed to provide 360 ° anti-aircraft defense.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 18 Dec 2016, 21:43

A system like that based on Aster would be good upgrade to UKADA like the old Bloodhound systems the RAF operated. Especially when the ABM version of ASTER comes on line.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1967
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Gabriele » 18 Dec 2016, 22:23

About MAMBA, the DGA has notified the Eurosam consortium comprising MBDA and Thales of a contract to modernize the SAMP / T anti-aircraft defense system and the Aster 30 missiles.


MAMBA is your (France) name for SAMP/T, but in the UK the MAMBA is the Arthur counter-artillery locating radar and that's what they were talking about, along with Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar LCMR.
The MAMBA has a 2026 OSD but the Royal Artillery has been trying for at least six years to get a Common Weapon Locating radar off the ground that was to replace both COBRA and MAMBA from 2012, with 12 radars purchased. Of course, CWLR did not get funding and COBRA was simply binned without replacement, leaving 6 MAMBA on BV206 chassis.

The latest ARTHUR model was the favorite for CWLR, but the Giraffe 4A might now be a serious contender when the Artillery tries again to get the programme moving. It is still in the list of the things to do, which is, wheeled 155mm howitzer aside, the very same list of requirements the RA had already before 2010.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 19 Dec 2016, 10:14

would make sense having a GP radar as long as the Giraffe 4a was a credible mortar locating radar to

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Frenchie » 19 Dec 2016, 10:49

Thank you Gabriele for your clarification, indeed I did not speak of the same thing :oops: :lol:

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Spinflight » 23 Dec 2016, 20:06

marktigger wrote:would make sense having a GP radar as long as the Giraffe 4a was a credible mortar locating radar to


I imagine it is, though bear in mind that it is merely the first of a rather revolutionary trend.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10916
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Apr 2017, 20:55

Gabriele wrote:The latest ARTHUR model was the favorite for CWLR, but the Giraffe 4A might now be a serious contender when the Artillery tries again to get the programme moving.


Looks like IRIS-T is in the same game as CAMM/ AMRAAM...- ER versions, with some serious improvement in reach, as shown in this one:
http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-de ... Layout.pdf
- and guess what, the above mentioned Giraffe is part of the solution, 360 degrees of constant tracking of up to 500 targets (so easy to be part of the deconflictation solution, too)

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 13 Apr 2017, 00:42

hopefully GBAD will get a renaissance and investment the threat never went away we chose to ignore it.

some old nameplates ressurected like 102.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10916
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Apr 2017, 09:25

It is one of the two immediate priorities (that the US Army intends to brush up)
- the other is active protection, APS, for their armour

Wake up call finally ringing, instead of planning landcruisers (even WW2 Germany failed to field them).

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby LordJim » 13 Apr 2017, 14:02

As with a multitude of "Alarm Bells" that are currently ring regarding our lack of capabilities and capacity to use them, how loud does the ringing have to get before the Government coughs up the funding for a planned procurement rather than a last minute panic UOR?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 14 Apr 2017, 10:33

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Looks like IRIS-T is in the same game as CAMM/ AMRAAM...- ER versions, with some serious improvement in reach, as shown in this one:
http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-de ... Layout.pdf
- and guess what, the above mentioned Giraffe is part of the solution, 360 degrees of constant tracking of up to 500 targets (so easy to be part of the deconflictation solution, too)


Looks like the ER version is shorter ranged than the proposed CAMM-ER. It's also interesting that they're retaining IR homing on both versions opposed to CAMM's RF seeker. Got to say that bare missiles leave me cold, canistered has been the way forward since the Mauler. it was a mistake the UK made with Rapier.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby S M H » 16 Apr 2017, 11:13

Timmymagic wrote:it was a mistake the UK made with Rapier
It must be remembered how old Rapier is it has been in service since the 1970s and predates the canister enclosed missiles. Though still very useable it starting to show its age even though it has been updated.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 16 Apr 2017, 13:33

S M H wrote:It must be remembered how old Rapier is it has been in service since the 1970s and predates the canister enclosed missiles. Though still very useable it starting to show its age even though it has been updated.


Not really. Rapier was procured as the Mauler missile system was cancelled by the US. We were going to get that and it had encapsulation (not 100% but near enough). Crotale and Roland were designed in the same timeframe, and for the same purpose, and went with encapsulation.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 16 Apr 2017, 17:34

yes and Rapier cam in 4,6 and 8 missile/ launcher as opposed to most roland launchers with 2

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 17 Apr 2017, 14:54

marktigger wrote:yes and Rapier cam in 4,6 and 8 missile/ launcher as opposed to most roland launchers with 2


To be fair the Crotale had 4 (apart from naval mounts with 8) and Rapier only got 8 on the tracked Rapier and Jernas.

It's never actually dawned on me just how profligate European weapon development was. At least 3 SAM systems in the same timeframe doing roughly the same job...not sure what the Italians and Swedes had at the time either.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 17 Apr 2017, 15:51

the other thing with Rapier is its portability something Roland and Crotale most certainly aren't.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby LordJim » 17 Apr 2017, 15:56

The Italians had the Aspide system of SAM and 40mm AAA around the same time. There was also two or three MANPADS under development in Europe at the same time. Oh how time have changes, I remember going to the Eurostatory Trade show in France a few times in the 1990s and the amount of European hardware on display was huge.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 17 Apr 2017, 16:55

then companies merged to compete with the big American companies

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10916
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Apr 2017, 02:05

Timmymagic wrote:Looks like the ER version is shorter ranged than the proposed CAMM-ER. It's also interesting that they're retaining IR homing on both versions opposed to CAMM's RF seeker. Got to say that bare missiles leave me cold, canistered has been the way forward since the Mauler.


Range is one thing, and the CAMM-ER is still on the drawing board whereas the other two ERs have been ordered. But on the point of canisters. encapsulation: the early NASAMS versions using AMRAAM could not use missiles straight out of air force stock, but has now been modified (with no sealed canisters!) to do so both for IRIS* and AMRAAM
[ *in Norway, where the system hails from even though it just picked up where the cancelled SLAMMER had left it, the driver was that with the F-16s soon going the expensive IRIS stock being recycled helped to halve the cost of procuring a mobile GBAD solution, with commonality of to their existing city/ base defences]

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10916
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Apr 2017, 02:25

LordJim wrote:The Italians had the Aspide system of SAM and 40mm AAA around the same time.


Did not remember that one; Oerlikon poured billions into an AD system, in the fear of being left out with "guns-only" solutions and in the end
- only the Canadians bought it
- and probably for those wasted billions Oerlikon is now a division of Rheinmetall (still excelling in the gun-based solutions, but now enjoying the virtues of a broader product portfolio providing financial stability for the wider group). They have come along way since the Swiss Gvmnt set the company up as a foundation to research AD solutions on the eve of WW2 - in Switzerland the vogue of "small gvmnt" has been there since the Federation was started and that was the work-around needed for starting the preparing for the inevitable.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby marktigger » 22 Apr 2017, 09:02

the Canadian govt bought ADATS, But also had Shorts Javelin and 35mm guns at one point

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 22 Apr 2017, 09:36

marktigger wrote:the Canadian govt bought ADATS, But also had Shorts Javelin and 35mm guns at one point


That's the thing that has always worried me about UK ground based air defence. No guns. Despite the fact that pretty much everyone else believes in a combination of guns and missiles. It was fairly instructive that when we chanced upon a number of captured, modern, 35mm and Skyguard we put them into service with the RAuxF straight away. In a world of increasing low cost aerial threats from UAV's I'm amazed that a gun based AA system isn't on the shopping list as a priority. It's ok buying UORS of anti-UAV systems for a threat from adapted commercial drones right now, but are they going to work on militarised drones? It's not going to be cost effective to fire Starstreak or LMM at every £1,500 drone we see in the 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, 09:40

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

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5861
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby shark bait » 22 Apr 2017, 10:55

We definitely need an alternative to shooting cheap off the shelf drones with guided missiles costing a hundreds of times more.

Electronic countermeasures are great for use against remote controlled targets, but it's so easy to add autonomous control to even cheap off the shelf drones, making them resistant to electronic attack, requiring a hard kill system to back it up.

The CT40 has airbust rounds making that good for taking out small UAV's, lasers are a promising non kinetic approach.
@LandSharkUK

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 695
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby mr.fred » 22 Apr 2017, 11:28

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.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests