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.
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 19 Sep 2018, 23:50

Ron5 wrote:Not if your VLS isn't long enough.


That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23. But T26 and T31? Who knows.
Pretty sure it would fit on the MAN Land Ceptor unit though..

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Sep 2018, 05:55

If land Ceptor comes sealed in its launch container in which it is also stored it would probably only a soft ware update for the British Army vehicles to the same spec as those being bought by the Italians for us to use the ER version. Unfortunately this is on the very long "Nice to have but not essential", list of kit.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Ron5 » 20 Sep 2018, 17:41

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Not if your VLS isn't long enough.


That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23. But T26 and T31? Who knows.
Pretty sure it would fit on the MAN Land Ceptor unit though..


Yes, it's been stated that the longer missile fits on the army's system without any mod. But as Jim points out, the software would need an update.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Sep 2018, 17:49

Not if your VLS isn't long enough.



That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23.


See, it is the question of length and mushroom shape, coming together, on both sides of the Atlantic
... at least we are more civilised :o about it

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Ron5 » 20 Sep 2018, 19:24

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Not if your VLS isn't long enough.



That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23.


See, it is the question of length and mushroom shape, coming together, on both sides of the Atlantic
... at least we are more civilised :o about it


below the belt comment (see what I did there?) but made me smile :D

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 26 Oct 2018, 16:16

MOD awarded £93M contract to Thales yesterday for update to Starstreak system for Army and Marines, with F-ADAPT, Future Air Defence Availability Project, which appears to be a new the thermal imaging sight that can be used 24 hours a day and an improved IFF.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 03 Dec 2018, 13:41

New LM M-SHORAD Future Interceptor missile, company funded, a 6 foot class 5" dia targeted at US Army, to slot in between their 27" x 1.6" dia Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile, MHTK and the Mach 5+ 19 foot x 11" dia Patriot PAC-3 MSM missile, LM also manufacture the 20.3 foot x 14.6 " dia Mach 5+ THAAD.

One of the main characteristics of all the LM AAW/BMD missiles have in common is HTK, hit-to-kill tech in which the missile uses a kinetic warhead to attack the target, agility in that the missile’s guidance, propulsion, and control surfaces allow it to maneuver more flexibly towards a target and with its smaller size allowing higher number missile loadout on vehicle or ship.

The LM M-SHORAD Future Interceptor missile with its relatively small 5" dia and so able to use small fins means less drag in flight and by optimising missile fineness ratio better able to maximise range but still maintaining terminal HTK capabilities with its approx 300 small solid rocket divert motors (show up well in pic) designed to help pitch the missile hard over in order to nail incoming maneuverable missiles head-on. Having the diverters up front can take advantage of atmospheric lift because you change AOA. How fast the LM SHORAD future missile decelerates due to drag after the rocket motor burns out will determine the range of the missile.

If the weight is lower and with the other factors as the ratio between pre-launch and expended rocket motor weights, and propellant/rocket factors a larger percentage of the total missile weight is now in the rocket motor giving rise to higher ‘Delta V’ with increased range; enable shaping complex flyouts; and/or increase end-game dynamics.

Have seen no range quoted, will be interesting if revealed how it compares to the CAMM which approx three times the size by volume to see if advantages claimed are realised.

From <https://www.janes.com/article/84936/lockheed-martin-conducts-initial-flight-test-of-new-m-shorad-future-interceptor>
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Dec 2018, 20:17

Probably 3x the cost as well.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 03 Dec 2018, 23:40

Lord Jim wrote:Probably 3x the cost as well.


Ground launched C.uda...and no one ordered that either. There are simply too many actual real missiles at the present for anyone to be interested. Either LM put the money up to actually fly one or it won't happen.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Dec 2018, 08:12

Timmymagic wrote:Ground launched C.uda...and no one ordered that either.


I agree with your post in a general way. There is a difference, though, between the drive to improve the fighter loadout through smaller missiles and having loadsa of the same for GBAD
- for A2A WVR lasers are emerging as a viable alternative
- for GBAD I am not aware lasers being tested for anything else than taking down UAVs (en masse, as other means for countering swarms are starting run out of road as for their cost effectiveness; a counter cannot cost x100 what the threat, per piece, is costing)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2018, 12:00

There is lots of talk of "Swarms" of UAVs being used to overwhelm defences, but I think this is going to be far harder to achieve that many believe. If you look at Israeli systems like Iron Dome designed to rapidly engage multiple rockets with a very short warning time, it isn't hard to imagine a similar system being designed to rapidly engage large formations of UCAVs. Of course you could reduce to visibility of said drones but that is going to increase the cost, which in turn makes the swarm idea less attractive. GDAD is going to become more and more a problem as time goes by. Maybe we need to look to a version of the proposed replacement for ATACMS which has a substantial range, fitted with a dual GPS/Anti-radar seeker for example, in other words ground based SEAD.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 04 Dec 2018, 12:58

I'm very dubious of lasers effectiveness, still very much R&D.

Laser spot size is a function of beam divergence and the distance from the laser to the target, a spread of 0.2 milliradian / dia of ~ 0.2 meters at a distance of 1 km and at 5 km the beam spread to 1 metre at 10 km beam would spread to 2 metres, if you require 0.1 milliradan accuracy would expect the cost to ballon.

Lasers must maintain a precise spot on a fast moving/bouncing around in the atmosphere missile target for several seconds to burn through, will need high power source and its attendant high infra red signature, will be useless in rain, fog, clouds, snow and haze since laser beam energy is quickly lost.

Will need very, very accurate, meaning very expensive fire control system, the high frequency radars with necessary definition which will be also degraded by adverse weather.

Offensive missile soft laser counter measures possible to negate laser with reflecting mirrored surface, though difficult to keep up in combat conditions and or heat absorbing material in missile nose cone.

Would not be surprised if lasers make guns and missiles look cheap in comparison.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2018, 00:13

Despite the PR releases I agree Lasers are further away from being truly viable battlefield weapons, naval maybe but that is a different thread.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 17 Dec 2018, 14:05

Interesting is the current spate between the Germans and US over the PAC-3 MSE missile for use with the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), PAC-3 MSE missile; Mach 5+; HTK; range ~ 35km for short range defence against ballistic/hypersonic missiles, (the Russian short range tactical ballistic missile Iskander-M, max speed Mach 5.9: range 400/500km, CEP 50/200m; warhead HE or nuclear, which when launched from the Russian Kaliningrad enclave on south coast of Baltic Sea bordering Poland can directly target Berlin), the PAC-3 MSE range extended approx 3x to ~100km when targeting Mach 1 a/c and missiles.

What is of interest the Germans do not seem interested in procuring the longer range US Army LM Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, Mach 8+, deployed in South Korea which upset the Chinese, perhaps $$$Bs cost.

US is refusing to release their full classified “six degree of freedom” simulation model for the PAC-3 MSE which would allow Germans to make best use MEADS/PAC-3 MSE where minute performance variations can mean the difference between an incoming missile shot down or a leaker maybe version with its nuclear warhead hitting Berlin.

The model can predict precisely how the interceptor would fare against the performance characteristics of enemy attack missiles, relying on data often obtained though intelligence and if leaked the modeling data could enable China/Russia to exploit weaknesses of the missile.

The multi-billion $ MEADS proposal by Lockheed Martin-MBDA Germany team is expected to deliver a final cost proposal in February or March to German Defence Ministry.

Shades of UK/US 2005 F-35 dispute over the promised waiver from the USA’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, when UK threatened to pull out of F-35 programme.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/1 ... ance-data/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Dec 2018, 15:01

NickC wrote:the current spate between the Germans and US
The previous spat was over Poland wanting the C&C module for use with their Patriots... and the US said "no cakeism... sorry! We want the system in service - and in due course we might sell it.
NickC wrote:when launched from the Russian Kaliningrad enclave on south coast of Baltic Sea bordering Poland can directly target Berlin)

+
NickC wrote: a leaker maybe version with its nuclear warhead hitting Berlin.

Nicely concentrating the minds in Berlin? Time to shave off the beards and make the Bundeswehr into true soldiers again (not a core force of 35.000 only, trained to fight)
- goes for the other branches of defence, equally (forget about "stabilisation" frigates!), but in their cases it is so much easier to hide behind the "tech": this is so much better than what we had, we only need "half of it" now
NickC wrote:Shades of UK/US 2005 F-35 dispute over the promised waiver

I don't think the Germans will keel over easily; the political side has a lot of say (sometimes too much)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Dec 2018, 01:13

This isn't the version of the Iskander that upset the US it is the Cruise missile variant that uses the same covered launch vehicle and is indistinguishable for the 'M' until it fire. This version is the one with the far greater range, exceeding treaty limitations, which the Russians deny.

How effect is the land based version of Aster, used by the French and Italians? It that getting the same ABM update the navies of these countries are developing?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2342
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby RetroSicotte » 18 Dec 2018, 08:51

Lord Jim wrote:How effect is the land based version of Aster, used by the French and Italians? It that getting the same ABM update the navies of these countries are developing?

Moderate. Good missile, but it's not anywhere close to being as BMD optimised. More aimed at SCUD etc.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Dec 2018, 09:15

RetroSicotte wrote:Moderate. Good missile, but it's not anywhere close to being as BMD optimised. More aimed at SCUD etc.


Yep. DefenceNews (March 29) gives the orders of magnitude involved in such optimisation:
- the std SAMP/T has a range of 100+ km
"Upgrades to the Aster 30 are planned by development partners France and Italy, with the Block 1 New Technology upgrade to allow the Aster 30 to hit ballistic missiles with a range of 1,000 kilomters. [...]The current Aster 30 Block 1 can intercept incoming missiles with a range of 600 kilometers."

Anyway, things are happening... while Germany haggles with the US over access to secret missile-performance data.
- wasn't Italy on the MEADS wagon, too, at some point?

ayibarishi
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 04 Dec 2018, 01:21
Location: Turkey

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ayibarishi » 22 Dec 2018, 00:37

May I ask?

Two rival country has 5 billion USD. One of them buys Patriot missiles from the USA with it. Then, this country has totally 200 Pac-3MSE for 100 air targets. (NATO use 2 missiles for each one target, Russia use 3 normally. It's their concept and habits.)

Other country choose a different path. They have a ballistic missile industry. And they make 1000+ km. ballistic missiles with a 5 million cost per unit. CEP values are good. They do 1000 unit missile with 250 launchers with the same money.

Which country is most deterrent?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2967
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Dec 2018, 06:44

?????????????

ayibarishi
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 04 Dec 2018, 01:21
Location: Turkey

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ayibarishi » 22 Dec 2018, 08:08

My first point is this: War economy and it's sustainability...

My second point is this: We need a different approach to the air defense systems. Stratified air defense networks, A2/AD concepts, many thinks must be considered again.

Do you want some example about it?.

NickC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby NickC » 22 Dec 2018, 10:52

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Anyway, things are happening... while Germany haggles with the US over access to secret missile-performance data.
- wasn't Italy on the MEADS wagon, too, at some point?


MEADS - Development work was allocated in accordance with national funding: USA 58%, Germany 25%, and Italy 17%.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Jan 2019, 03:33

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Gabriele wrote:Brize Norton for permanent air mobility security taskings.


Does anyone happen to know of the "specialisms" that the different RAF Rgmnts might have?
- the NRBC role was short lived; hope something was left behind to help maintain base security also against non-kinetic (denial) attacks


Cold War dinosaurs seem to travel: https://www.janes.com/article/84614/rus ... e-to-syria
- though this one is a new model

If we are serious about being able to protect forward air/ air-supply bases, the RAF Rgmnt should have a similar capability; does not matter if it is with the army, as long as they train together for deployments
- what would you rather drop from a commercially sourced drone: a single hand grenade, or something more potent (esp. if the OpFor is 'non-state')

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby Timmymagic » 15 Jan 2019, 09:47

ArmChairCivvy wrote:If we are serious about being able to protect forward air/ air-supply bases, the RAF Rgmnt should have a similar capability; does not matter if it is with the army, as long as they train together for deployments
- what would you rather drop from a commercially sourced drone: a single hand grenade, or something more potent (esp. if the OpFor is 'non-state')


Not seen anything about a replacement for Fuchs. You would have thought the Germans would be developing a Boxer variant to take on the role, but nothing yet..

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2019, 12:05

Timmymagic wrote:Not seen anything about a replacement for Fuchs


I think the 'inners' for those that we have got refurbed... but the number of them in total is not much off from 10!


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests