Ground Based Air Defence
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
EIther turret developed with the CT40 installed could be the basis of an effectve SHORAD system with the appropriate targeting and FCS. Both have the elevation and the ability to feed sensor fued ammunition. BAe also has access to the Swedish 40mm SHORAD platform using the CV90 platform.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I’d like to see them integrated with the rs4 and rs6 rws. Then we could mix and match between javelin and lmm/starstreak and ensure the rws is integrated on as many vehicles as possible. There all made by various Thales divisions in the U.K. already.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2022/08 ... -pin-pin1/
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
TRL7 and up:The Land GBAD Programme has been established in response to Army’s requirement for a fully integrated Air Defence system of systems. This is a Category A Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) programme. This will be an enduring capability that will be delivered through incremental capability uplifts over the next 10 years. The identified Single Statement of User Need (SSUN) for Land GBAD is stated as:
“Land GBAD must provide sufficient, effective capability to warn, inform, deter and defeat all air threats (including aircraft, missiles, munitions, and UAS), in order to prevent adversary interference from the air inhibiting Joint Force freedom of manoeuvre. Land GBAD will provide lethal and non-lethal defeat mechanisms and minimise the risk it presents to friendly and neutral air users. It will be deployable on multi-domain operations, integrated, scalable up to divisional level, and in joint and multi-national operations to Protect, Engage, Constrain and Fight”.
Identified capabilities to be delivered and enhanced by the Land GBAD programme include:
• Short-Range Air Defence (SHORAD);
• Medium-Range Air Defence (M-RAD);
• Counter Small Aerial Targets (C-SAT) for SHORAD and MRAD; and
• All Arms Counter Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (All Arms C-sUAS).
These capabilities will be incrementally delivered as a multifaceted and multi-layered programme over a 10-year period. Aerial threats to be targeted range from Class 1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) including swarms, artillery, munitions, Attack Helicopters and Fixed Wing Aircraft, with potential for larger munitions and the introduction of future novel weapons.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf
- These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Despite the announcement I am not too confident these capabilities will be delivered at all. How long has the existing requirement for a replacement for Bloodhound sat at the back of the cupboard gathering dust for example?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Yeah with the way China and Russia has been behaving the government really needs to divert money from other departments into defense. No idea what they are going to cut but it's going to require some difficult decisions as our short term economic out look is going to hit a few shocks.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
And now for comparison and commentary of all who have a opinion my hero Olaf made a photo op intended to scare the Russian Bear!!!!
Olaf inspect a Flackpanzer Gepard 1A2 he is sending in Ukraine
Olaf inspect a Flackpanzer Gepard 1A2 he is sending in Ukraine
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Which requirement? An actual MoD one or the pundit's view that we're missing that capability?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
An actual MoD one thought I am not privy to the number and details. Like a number if capabilities it has existed for a long time but never high enough to have action taken, there has always been something more importantthat required resources.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
It wasn't just Bloodhound that needed replacing but Thunderbird too. Money of course was the problem and they could always rely on the RAF to deal with medium/high altitude threats!
Today the situation has changed with the widespread use of precision guided munitions putting any fixed installations at much greater threat. In particular ballistic/hypersonic missiles are likely to be the biggest threat, which currently we can do nothing about. Hopefully priorities will change and that situation will be rectified.
Today the situation has changed with the widespread use of precision guided munitions putting any fixed installations at much greater threat. In particular ballistic/hypersonic missiles are likely to be the biggest threat, which currently we can do nothing about. Hopefully priorities will change and that situation will be rectified.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Well there are really two options on the table, Patriot and SAMP-t. I would prefer the latter as it cuttrntly has a better more flexible radar and of course uses basicaly the same missiles as the Royal Navy's Aster. IF we later mover to the Mk41 VLS for the T-83, the missiles will still be useable.
WE also need a good point defence suystem to defend any sitr in it current location and on the move, a role that could be cover by Starstreak/LMM but would be better if complimented with a gun based system..
Whatever system that may possibly be chosen, I would give it to the RAF Regiment as it needs to be tied into the RAF's other AD weapons platforms and control and detection capabilities. I would hopwever have Army personnel embedded to lik it SHORAD systems operated by that service. Of course the RN would also be involved, networking our ABM capabilities when possiblr.
One Regiment with four to six batteries should do with each Battery comprised of one Radar wagon, one Command and Contrl wagon and three to four wagosn with a four or six round launcher installed.+
WE also need a good point defence suystem to defend any sitr in it current location and on the move, a role that could be cover by Starstreak/LMM but would be better if complimented with a gun based system..
Whatever system that may possibly be chosen, I would give it to the RAF Regiment as it needs to be tied into the RAF's other AD weapons platforms and control and detection capabilities. I would hopwever have Army personnel embedded to lik it SHORAD systems operated by that service. Of course the RN would also be involved, networking our ABM capabilities when possiblr.
One Regiment with four to six batteries should do with each Battery comprised of one Radar wagon, one Command and Contrl wagon and three to four wagosn with a four or six round launcher installed.+
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Well you mi@ed onw of the layers.
First layer is currently Starstreak / LMM with approx 7-8 km range.
Second layer is currently Sky Sabre with approx range with CAMM (could be extended to 45km if purchased CAMM-ER).
Third layer potentially would be Patriot at approx 70km range. Or THAAD with 200km range.
I remember recently in March 2022 the UK was purchasing from US a $700bn Ballistic Missile Defence Radar. Not sure what BMD missiles they were planning on using. I guess most likely was Aster Block 1NT which could also be used in T45.
i am sure others will have a view of Patriot / THAAD / Aster Block 1NT would be best to add as 3rd layer.
But agree that also need anti air guns as a cheaper alternative, especially against small drones.
First layer is currently Starstreak / LMM with approx 7-8 km range.
Second layer is currently Sky Sabre with approx range with CAMM (could be extended to 45km if purchased CAMM-ER).
Third layer potentially would be Patriot at approx 70km range. Or THAAD with 200km range.
I remember recently in March 2022 the UK was purchasing from US a $700bn Ballistic Missile Defence Radar. Not sure what BMD missiles they were planning on using. I guess most likely was Aster Block 1NT which could also be used in T45.
i am sure others will have a view of Patriot / THAAD / Aster Block 1NT would be best to add as 3rd layer.
But agree that also need anti air guns as a cheaper alternative, especially against small drones.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
"Letter of Intent for the development of a “European Sky Shield Initiative”
"14 NATO allies included: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, the United Kingdom"
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_208103.htm
"14 NATO allies included: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, the United Kingdom"
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_208103.htm
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Hopefully plenty of orders for aster, camm and startreak to follow couple with seafire and giraffe radars.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Does "off the shelf solutions" limit development of technologies that for instance counter hypersonic weapons? a networked of anti ballistic missile It will be interesting to see what they come up with
I have included Russia's S-500 system as a starting point to emulate
https://www.military-today.com/missiles/s500.htm
The U.K has more recently announced the deployment of Sky-Sabre
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ish-skies/
https://www.navylookout.com/a-gap-in-th ... to-the-uk/
This article suggests some interesting capabilities for Sky-Sabre though
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ond-target
America may have only the sm-6 as a realistic counter to hypersonic missiles
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... chief-says
I have included Russia's S-500 system as a starting point to emulate
https://www.military-today.com/missiles/s500.htm
The U.K has more recently announced the deployment of Sky-Sabre
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ish-skies/
https://www.navylookout.com/a-gap-in-th ... to-the-uk/
This article suggests some interesting capabilities for Sky-Sabre though
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ond-target
America may have only the sm-6 as a realistic counter to hypersonic missiles
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... chief-says
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Interesting to hear about the S-500 SAM System. I wonder how many they may actually but. They have only bought a fraction of the S-400s they intended. However it should be a reasonable to good system when in service.
With regards to Poland, don't they intend to actually order Sky Sabre themselves or have already ordered it? In its class it is the premier system at present, sitting below systems like SAMP-T and Patriot. Maybe we could end up with further otders as some nations wish to replace their Soviet era systems.
This was the first time I have heard that we are actually looking to purchase a land-based ABM capable system. We have had the Radar up in Yorkshire for some time, but I thought the ABM role was going to be handled by the RN, initially cued by said radar.
As for the SM-6 being the USA's only counter to hyper sonic, well at least they already have something unlike may countries.
With regards to Poland, don't they intend to actually order Sky Sabre themselves or have already ordered it? In its class it is the premier system at present, sitting below systems like SAMP-T and Patriot. Maybe we could end up with further otders as some nations wish to replace their Soviet era systems.
This was the first time I have heard that we are actually looking to purchase a land-based ABM capable system. We have had the Radar up in Yorkshire for some time, but I thought the ABM role was going to be handled by the RN, initially cued by said radar.
As for the SM-6 being the USA's only counter to hyper sonic, well at least they already have something unlike may countries.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I found this an interesting listen as I was confused about the strengths and weaknesses of SM-3, SM-6, Patriot and THAAD, and how they interlinked in a layered GBAD. Also considering the weaknesses of various radar systems in detecting Hypersonic cruise and glide missiles, and the resulting reaction times.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Some follow up comments in Le Monde corroborating information I saw elsewhere (that I was unsure to believe in isolation):wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑13 Oct 2022, 20:23 "Letter of Intent for the development of a “European Sky Shield Initiative”
"14 NATO allies included: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, the United Kingdom"
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_208103.htm
"This missile shield project aims to form a sort of "multi-layer bubble" to protect European countries from attacks by missiles of different ranges and some drones and helicopters. This "sky shield" is intended to include the purchase of IRIS-T systems with a range of around 30 km (developed by the German company Diehl Defence) and Patriot systems (manufactured by the American Raytheon Company) which can provide protection up to around 200 km."
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international ... 452_4.html
Note: Poland is NOT one of the 14 NATO nations to sign up to this “European Sky Shield Initiative” - pretty much the only one of the Eastern European NATO nations to not sign. Presumably this is because they have already made their own arrangements with US (for Patriot PAC3) and UK (for Sky Sabre i.e. CAMM)
Also unsure ho this fits in with UK's dvlopment of both Sky Sabre but also Aster 30 Block 1NT
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Reflecting the lessons Russian missile attacks on ukraine's energy grid ?
October 18th
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/ke ... nse-system
October 20th
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-10-20/
October 18th
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/ke ... nse-system
October 20th
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-10-20/
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Western ground based AA is a joke, way too much reliance on airpower, which has proven to be a bit overrated with HIMARS and drones.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
It is the way western nations have looked at GBAD that is a joke no the systems involved. You are right in that western nations have relied too much on their air power having been lulled into a false sense of security over the decades they have been able to dominate the airspace above any conflict they have been involved in, though none of these have been against a top tier adversary. As for the kit, well this is certainly world class, from MANPADS Starstreak up to Area defence and ABM with Patriot and THAADS. As a result, if western nations wish to fill any gaps in GBAD they have a multitude of off teh shelf systems they can choose from. The UK for example has a very capable MANPADS in the form of both Starstreak and LMM together with an effective SHORADS in the form of Sky Sabre. However, er do really need to compliment Sky Saber with a mobile SPAAA system and there is a long outstanding requirement for an area air defence systems originally to replace the RA's Bloodhound. Solutions are readily available and affordable if the requirement is given sufficient priority.
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
The US for example goes Stinger ? ? ? > Patriot > THAAD.
SHORAD has been criminally underrated in Western defense.
I'd like to see 100 NASAMS and 100 IRIS-T.
Ukraine alone could use 20 of each.
SHORAD has been criminally underrated in Western defense.
I'd like to see 100 NASAMS and 100 IRIS-T.
Ukraine alone could use 20 of each.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
We've spent 20 years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against an opposition that didn't use UAS, let alone jets.sunstersun wrote: ↑25 Oct 2022, 05:03 Western ground based AA is a joke, way too much reliance on airpower, which has proven to be a bit overrated with HIMARS and drones.
So yes, it's been massively neglected but have still maintained and developed equipment in that time (LMM and Sky Sabre).
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Should shoulder and/or tripod launched Starstreak and LMM be kept with the Royal Artillery ro should they be disseminated down to combat units? I can see the Royal Artillery retaining control of platform-based systems but can also see advantages in individual units such as Infantry Battalions having integral MANPADS. What do people think?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Isn't that the point of LMM and, for AT usage, nLAW? Shorter-ranged, but capable and easy-to-use compared to Starstreak and Javelin.
I've read that it takes as many as 2000 simulated launches to learn to use Starstreak effectively, whereas LMM can be used effectively after a couple of hours of instruction. I've no idea how long it takes to train on Javelin, but I believe that it is more complex to use than nLAW. Both those systems are better suited to specialists - though I suppose the argument is whether or not those specialists are RA, or integral to the infantry unit.
I've read that it takes as many as 2000 simulated launches to learn to use Starstreak effectively, whereas LMM can be used effectively after a couple of hours of instruction. I've no idea how long it takes to train on Javelin, but I believe that it is more complex to use than nLAW. Both those systems are better suited to specialists - though I suppose the argument is whether or not those specialists are RA, or integral to the infantry unit.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill