Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

One of CAMM's key features is a cold launch, which means their is no heat bloom to be detected. I recently read that the missile goes up to around 100ft before tipping over, so there are few obstacles is cannot avoid (waiting for example such as Big Ben or Shard.) Another key feature is that CAMM is agnostic and can use any radar, we seem to like the Giraffe.

If we want to improve our GBAD the obvious way forward is to adopt CAMM-ER and have mixed batteries. they compliment each other and provide a layers air defence out beyond 50km. For SHORAD we already have Starstreak and LMM, and adding an SPAAG we would have the inner layer. To complete the systems we need a Regiment equipped with SAMP-T, which also can integrate with CAMM/CAMM-ER. This seems to be where the Italian Army is heading with two systems already ordered. We already have an outstanding requirement for a systems like SAMP-T on the books. If we could get them to go for CAMM as well and then work together to support what would be the best integrated aid defence system in NATO. Yes it will cost money, be can we afford not to purchase such a system of systems.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Interesting. I can understand the constrained arcs, and whilst I know that MSTAR is significantly smaller, the remote cable control greatly improves survivability.
To be honest its a concept that I'm surprised no-one has adopted to date. We've got elevating mast mounted radars (Giraffe), elevating E/O systems (though not ADADS). You'd have thought a SAM System parked up in a stand of trees, or buildings with only its sensors showing would be a very hard target to pick out, let alone attack. A SAM with a VL system and decent tip over speed, like CAMM, could fire vertically to clear obstructions and engage the target wilst remaining out of sight. If the missile had adjustable initial climb out so that it could be tailored for different cover even better. Using radar's or E/O systems to try and pick up such a system would be a nightmare.
Image
Yeah, you're not familiar with concealment concepts are you?
Ajax guy giving lessons on concealment - gimme a frikkin break.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:One of CAMM's key features is a cold launch, which means their is no heat bloom to be detected. I recently read that the missile goes up to around 100ft before tipping over, so there are few obstacles is cannot avoid (waiting for example such as Big Ben or Shard.) Another key feature is that CAMM is agnostic and can use any radar, we seem to like the Giraffe.

If we want to improve our GBAD the obvious way forward is to adopt CAMM-ER and have mixed batteries. they compliment each other and provide a layers air defence out beyond 50km. For SHORAD we already have Starstreak and LMM, and adding an SPAAG we would have the inner layer. To complete the systems we need a Regiment equipped with SAMP-T, which also can integrate with CAMM/CAMM-ER. This seems to be where the Italian Army is heading with two systems already ordered. We already have an outstanding requirement for a systems like SAMP-T on the books. If we could get them to go for CAMM as well and then work together to support what would be the best integrated aid defence system in NATO. Yes it will cost money, be can we afford not to purchase such a system of systems.
Rheinmetall on line 1. Turret also comes on a Boxer as we've seen before. Skyranger 30 ..

Image

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Interesting. I can understand the constrained arcs, and whilst I know that MSTAR is significantly smaller, the remote cable control greatly improves survivability.
To be honest its a concept that I'm surprised no-one has adopted to date. We've got elevating mast mounted radars (Giraffe), elevating E/O systems (though not ADADS). You'd have thought a SAM System parked up in a stand of trees, or buildings with only its sensors showing would be a very hard target to pick out, let alone attack. A SAM with a VL system and decent tip over speed, like CAMM, could fire vertically to clear obstructions and engage the target wilst remaining out of sight. If the missile had adjustable initial climb out so that it could be tailored for different cover even better. Using radar's or E/O systems to try and pick up such a system would be a nightmare.
Image
Yeah, you're not familiar with concealment concepts are you?
Ajax guy giving lessons on concealment - gimme a frikkin break.
"Ajax guy"?

Ron, if you're going to consistently act like a prat, then you're going to be consistently treated like one.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

It is interesting that in the picture that has been shown above, the launcher is not fitted with the optional EO mast, which gives it a integral detection, launch and control ability. I would like to know what can block the existing data link, as that is the key to the dispersed nature of the CAMM system, linking the Launchers, Radar and control module. If it is able to easily be deployed in a built up area as is then there are few problems, but if building can block the data link having a stand alone capability with an EO mast becomes important. I do really like the way the CAMM system is set up, it is incredibly flexible and offers many opportunities that other current western SAM systems do not.

The greatest issue is that we are buying far to few of them, barely enough to equip a single Regiment and even then one of the Batteries is permanently stations sown in the Falklands, reducing the Regiment's deployable strength by a quarter. We need at lest a second Regiment equipped with CAMM or a similar buy of CAMM-ER to create two multilayer Regiments. Maybe the second could be manned by Reservists or a portion of both. We do also need a Regiment with a SAM systems able to cover a greater range and possibly have a ABM capability. All of this needs to be addressed between now and 2030, the timespan of the Army's ten year plan that coincides with its holiday from major combat operations.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

At the other end of the spectrum we could do with a simple 360 degree triple mounted LMM on a vehicle allowing it to move quickly and be ready as soon as the vehicle stops

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:At the other end of the spectrum we could do with a simple 360 degree triple mounted LMM on a vehicle allowing it to move quickly and be ready as soon as the vehicle stops
I think it'll happen, but not until MRV-P platforms are clearly defined. I would expect it's a simple addition to a utility variant. I think it would require greater integration to be utilised on Boxer.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:It is interesting that in the picture that has been shown above, the launcher is not fitted with the optional EO mast, which gives it a integral detection, launch and control ability.
It's there on the other side of the vehicle. Just not extended.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:At the other end of the spectrum we could do with a simple 360 degree triple mounted LMM on a vehicle allowing it to move quickly and be ready as soon as the vehicle stops
Image

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

The Stormer is great for the armoured units I was thinking more along the lines of the Malaysian 4x4 with a pole mounted manual 3 round unit on it for light motorized units

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:The Stormer is great for the armoured units I was thinking more along the lines of the Malaysian 4x4 with a pole mounted manual 3 round unit on it for light motorized units
Which is exactly what the MRV-P Pt. 1 vehicle can accommodate in utility variant, but that's not a given these days.

I'm sure Boxer will replace Stormer, and hopefully have a variety of weapon systems to match the target.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

One option would be to build a Mission Module for Boxer containing the launcher and control station(s) from the Stormer/HVM.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:One option would be to build a Mission Module for Boxer containing the launcher and control station(s) from the Stormer/HVM.
Of course, but that wouldn't use much of the payload/capacity of the significantly larger Boxer.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Which is exactly what the MRV-P Pt. 1 vehicle can accommodate in utility variant, but that's not a given these days.
That's not any part of the MRVP requirement and if it were, it would not be based on the JLTV utility variant any more than the US VSHORAD versions are.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Which is exactly what the MRV-P Pt. 1 vehicle can accommodate in utility variant, but that's not a given these days.
That's not any part of the MRVP requirement and if it were, it would not be based on the JLTV utility variant any more than the US VSHORAD versions are.
Which requirements? There's no contract.

To the best of my knowledge, there is a demand for a GPV-logistics with a flat cargo area that could easily accommodate the stand for LMM/Starstreak.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Which requirements? There's no contract.
Non sequitur?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Of course, but that wouldn't use much of the payload/capacity of the significantly larger Boxer.
I wonder if you could squeeze the launcher onto a JLTV?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Of course, but that wouldn't use much of the payload/capacity of the significantly larger Boxer.
I wonder if you could squeeze the launcher onto a JLTV?
It would fit, it wouldn't be a squeeze.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe that is the route to go down, providing a platform that is easily deployable and able to provide SHORAD for light BCTs, help protect airfields, and so on. Then work on developing a Boxer based Gun/Missile system for the Heavy BCTs and Deep Fires BCT. providing a limited number of Starstreak/LMM launchers on the rear module fo the Viking for use in severe terrain like up north would be a nice option as well.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

if you check out the video for star-streak Thor on youtube then something like this on Bushmaster or JLTV would be good

edit ; there is a nice bit where they show how a dart from star streak punched though an 1" of armoured steel with kinetic energy only

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Thor would be a very good option for the RA Air Defence Regiment supporting the Light BCTs as well as the RAF, as there aren't going to be enough CAMM to equip the latter with the amount currently on order.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Nah. This looks better against drones ..

(RM Skyranger 30, same turret, two different platforms)

Image
Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Problem with drones is detecting them. It is easier to disrupt their C2 that actually engage them directly. Any SPAA platform really should have this capability, possibly instead of the missiles. Such a platform should also have the ability to be optionally link up to and guided by a local radar in addition to operating autonomously.

In the recent conflict in the Caucasus, it was found to be very difficult to detect UAVs even when they were expected because of the materials they are made from, size and altitude. The only component the radars could usually detect was the UAV's engine which was no easy task. Some of the better Russian radars were being used as well as some from Turkey and Israel, so we will need greatly improved local Radar coverage of our forces supplemented by other means such as IR and EO detection. All part of the network centric doctrine we are supposed to be developing.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:Nah. This looks better against drones ..

(RM Skyranger 30, same turret, two different platforms)

Image
Image
Again great for the heavy BCT's but to big for the Light BCT's but something like Thor on a Bushmaster or JLTV could be a good fit

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Again great for the heavy BCT's but to big for the Light BCT's but something like Thor on a Bushmaster or JLTV could be a good fit
I think you should probably check the dimensions of those two vehicles :D

Post Reply