Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Caribbean »

Ah! I thought that we had only converted 4 out of the ten back to naval standard
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

According to Think Defence the British Army has a total of ten Giraffe AMB radars in service. A total of twenty four Land Ceptor units are to be ordered though only the eight for use in the Falkland's have actually been ordered and delivered. These eight launchers are sufficient for two firing Batteries, leaving two launch vehicles in reserve. Each Battery will also have one mobile Giraffe AMB Radar and a one Command/Launch Control Vehicle. All systems are mounted on the trusty MAN SV truck chassis, which is already in service with the British Army. This leaves sixteen Launch vehicles and up to eight Radars left for all remaining GBAD duties for both the Army and RAF. It seems to be generally accepted that the MoD needs to order at least another twenty four Launch Vehicles as well as additional Radars and Command vehicles to meet the needs of the Army and RAF. This will require around £250M.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

A video from the "Sun" showing the official adoption of Sky Sabre by the British Army and its introduction into service. I believe it is already in the Falklands so this may mean the systems they are talking about are part of the remaining systems from the 28 or so on order and that this has been funded. It had been reported that only hte Falklands Battery had been funded up until now so things may have improved. Even so the Army needs far more than one Regiments worth if it is to defend its own units as well as protecting other high value locations like RAF Airfields for example.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by BB85 »

Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
Dahedd

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Defiance »

BB85 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 16:02 Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
There's a bit of a difference though between providing organic surface-to-air capability to the Army and defending the UK from cruise missile attack. Sky Sabre would be pissing in the wind at solving the latter

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

BB85 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 16:02 The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
Realistically out of range??

I don't think anyone thinks that. The Russian bomber fleet is plenty capable of launching volley after volley of cruise missiles at the UK, conventional and nuclear.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Defiance »

Timmymagic wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 16:47 I don't think anyone thinks that. The Russian bomber fleet is plenty capable of launching volley after volley of cruise missiles at the UK, conventional and nuclear.
At which point the only deterrence to prevent the Russians from doing something like that is
  • The belief that NATO would honour their Article 5 commitments
  • UK CASD resilience
Something like that is WW3 territory. If they've got it in their heads to try something like that, beefing up Lossiemouth and dropping in some SAMs won't change their strategic calculus.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

At present we are going to have to rely on allies to provide medium and long range GBAD, though Sky Sabre can almost be classed as Medium, but we would do better to mix in a few, say a third of each Battery with CAMM-ER. With each Launcher able to hold either twelve CAMM or eight CAMM-ER, and the radar already chosen being more than capable of working with both missiles or is it the other way around, it would mainly be a software issue to carry out such an upgrade., but before we start with that we first need additional Sky Sabre Batteries to be ordered, double what we have at present, and we also need a gun based system to be integral with other Formations like the Mechanised Infantry and Recce Regiments. Only then will the increase in GBAD promised in the Command Paper be realised.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dahedd

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Dahedd »

BB85 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 16:02 Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.

I'd say we need the equivalent of T45 ashore, bit like the US Ageis ashore. Positioned at strategic places round thd UK giving coverage over important military sites & locations. Ideal world...Say one up in the Northern Isles, another at Lossie/Kinloss or even the old RAF Buchan by Peterhead. Then work the way down the coast. Edinburgh, Newcastle etc etc.

Isn't there a T45 test rig set up above Portsmouth ? Good place to start & test it out.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by SW1 »

Used to be a dozen bloodhound sqns around the U.K.

maybe realising having long range Air/surface to surface and surface to air missile systems are a deterrent to people who may wish to enter your borders maybe a gd place for NATO and the U.K. to begin in there defence posture.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Dahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding T-45 ashore, it already exists in the form of SAMP/T. If we decided the future of AAW in the Royal Navy was based around the Mk41 VLS we could transfer our stock of Aster 30 missiles to SAMP/T Batteries, reducing the acquisition costs of such a system. It is a very good system that at present is superior to Patriot, though planned modernisation of the latter system will bring it up to parity.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 20:41 Used to be a dozen bloodhound sqns around the U.K.
And although it was a good system they only provided coverage to a small part of the country.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

I believe there were two Squadrons of Bloodhound Mk2s split into Flights which equates to a Battery and these were dotted up the East Coast as I believe six locations. Previously they had be sited at airfields in Germany. The Army had Thunderbird, but did away with it the same time as it introduced Rapier, which also replaced numerous 40mm Regiments.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by inch »

But isn't the UK policy not too have missile defence for the mainland unlike most other countries in adequate numbers ie systems and missile numbers ,just like the ships and army regiments ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

As far as the MoD, Treasury and Government are concerned it is all about capabilities not the capacity to actually use them in a stand up fight.

Not ordering enough Sky Sabre is such a stupid move as it is a very good system that can be easily networked with other resources. Only a software patch is needed to use CAMM-ER as the Launch vehicle and Radar will accept the new missile and Italy is already integrating SAMP/T and CAMM-ER within its GBAD Batteries. Adding these to our forces would give us a very effective land based layered GBAD, further improved it we purchase a gun based system like those prototyped for the Boxer.

What we need is one Regiment equipped with SAMP/T, which is having an ABM capability developed, and two Regiments, one being a Reserve, equipped with Sky Sabre and CAMM-ER. The gun based system being integral with combat units. Given the growing threat the purchase of such a capability and capacity should be a no brainer for the MoD.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacDahedd

UKD
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Oct 2020, 16:22
Poland

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by UKD »

Ideally they would develop a containerised CAMM launcher that be fired remotely without the control and radar vehicles, and queued off an AWACS or nearby F-35. The containers could be used on ships as well so the value would be immense.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by SW1 »

Thought that was how land captor worked in part in that the missile system can be dis mounted

https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... -camm-gbad

Though I have often wondered why someone has never used a land tacticos for example for the land combat management system.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Great news about the letter of intent, now we just need to order some more.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

UKD wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 16:07 Ideally they would develop a containerised CAMM launcher that be fired remotely without the control and radar vehicles, and queued off an AWACS or nearby F-35. The containers could be used on ships as well so the value would be immense.
There's no way a non-arty non-GBAD asset will have command and control of a box full of missiles...

External systems providing information into the command element isn't a huge undertaking, and whilst it could be automated in some circumstances, there would always be a watchkeeping element.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by BB85 »

Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 14:47 Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.
This is why reversionary modes exist.
But you wouldn’t want to avoid the benefits of networking on the grounds of a “what if?”

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

If we actually planned to develop an integrated GBAD System, networking would be very useful if not essential, but at present we do not plan to do so. Sky Sabre batteries may get threat warning data form allied assets via datalink but we will only have between four and five Batteries available due to the low number of platforms being purchased and one of these will be permanently based in the Falklands, I am guessing one will be in Oman and one will be for training duties. So we may have two to protect up to two BCTs be they heavy or light, in addition to protecting high value locations if required.

If we are not going to purchase a true area defence missile system like Patriot of SAMP/T then to cover out forces we need more Shy Sabre Batteries, at least another Regiments worth. All part of the issues arising from the "Peace Dividend", being over and having to try to regain the ability to fight high intensity Peer level conflict. By the way this idea of keeping the enemy a distance sounds great as long as the enemy knows he is to do so. A fighting withdrawal, which is what would happen if Russia crossed the line, is one of the hardest action an Army can conduct and usage rates will rpobebly mean we will run out of missiles very quickly any how.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 14:47 Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.
That's what fibre is for...
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
Defiance

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Defiance »

RunningStrong wrote: 09 Feb 2022, 09:22
BB85 wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 14:47 Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.
That's what fibre is for...
Lots of pre-planned positions for Russian SAMs have buried cables between dispersal zones to ensure uninterrupted comms within the battery (and maybe even further back, if they've laid the infrastructure)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

But isn't that simply alternate sites for fixed defences rather then mobile Batteries protecting advancing troops. Any Batteries we have will have to constantly relocate to avoid enemy SEAD and Artillery fire, so secure datalinks should be the norm. Even defending a fixed site, such as an airfield will require the Battery to be moving on a regular basis though in this case having a buries infrastructure maybe of use.

Post Reply