Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Defiance »

Secure datalinks are already the norm, the West have done a great job over the last 30 years showing our adversaries exactly that. That's why older school things like a spool of cable are coming back in fashion

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Feb 2022, 11:38 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.
Spool of fibre plus a motorcycle...

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Very Good. :D

Why not a small aerial Drone with a spool? WE are expecting UAVs to do everything in the near future anyway and it is greener! :D

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 10 Feb 2022, 15:35 Very Good. :D

Why not a small aerial Drone with a spool? WE are expecting UAVs to do everything in the near future anyway and it is greener! :D
Electric motorcycle ;)

Drones still haven't nailed the zero EM emissions bit...

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Nice interview regarding the Air Defence assets we are intending to send to Poland after they requested our assistance.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technol ... hp&pc=U531
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Mar 2022, 00:40 Nice interview regarding the Air Defence assets we are intending to send to Poland after they requested our assistance.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technol ... hp&pc=U531
The first vehicle we saw was the Land Ceptor part of Sky Sabre missile system with CAMM. CAMM has a range of just 25 miles so this is more of a tactical air defence to cover the immediate area. I presume that the exisiting Polish air defence systems cover a wider area as otherwise not much of a layered air defence.

What was the second vehicle with smaller air defence system? Is it a Stormer AFV with Starstreak? I presume if so that it is similar to MANPADS version with 4 mile range, but presumably better stability and quicker targetting as vehicle mounted?

Now that we are getting new BMD radars we definitely need a longer ranger SAM to provide more strategic long range air defense to add another layer.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by TSharpe28 »

There was rumours the UK will buy CAMM-ER
These users liked the author TSharpe28 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

TSharpe28 wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 04:04 There was rumours the UK will buy CAMM-ER
That would definitely help with Sky Saber for Army.

For Navy wouldn't help the T45's Destroyers because they have Sylver VLS with Aster 15 / 30 missiles. But will definitely help T23 / T26 / T31 Frigates who will probably have Sea Viper but not Sylver.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Is Sea Viper already cleared for the Mk41 VLS or planned to be? My opinion for the T-45 would be a combination of the latest version of the Aster 30 and Sea Ceptor. What I would like to see going forward is for Sea Ceptor to be seen as the point defence weapon against AShMs and then eithers a further development of Astor or one of the US Standard family as an area defence weapon. Hopefully if one of the latter is chosen for the T-45 successor then it could also be back filled into the T-26 if desired.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by TSharpe28 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 18:19
TSharpe28 wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 04:04 There was rumours the UK will buy CAMM-ER
That would definitely help with Sky Saber for Army.

For Navy wouldn't help the T45's Destroyers because they have Sylver VLS with Aster 15 / 30 missiles. But will definitely help T23 / T26 / T31 Frigates who will probably have Sea Viper but not Sylver.


and



and


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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

The Sky Sabre Launch Vehicle can already mount CAMM-ER. The only difference is the number of missiles of each type it can carry at any one time. Each launcher can carry up to a maximum of twelve CAMM (2x6), but it would only carry eight CAMM-ER (2x4). It ould however carry a combination of six CAMM and four CAMM-ER. We do need additional Launch and Control platforms though to stand up a second Regiment as one is simply not enough to cover all the areas required, which include those previously covered by the RAF Regiment.

Though Sky Sabre and its improved ER variant are a world class GBAD System, the UK still needs a top tier SAM system in the league of Patriot or SAMP-T or even THAAD. Of those Patriot would be the cheapest but it is less effective at present than the more expensive SAMP-T. Sky Sabre can seamlessly integrate with either system though to provide a fully integrated GBAD network. No modifications are required to either system as the Italians have found out as they have followed the SAMP-T/CAMM-ER route. We may even find it possible to link in our existing Starstreak/LMM units. providing them advanced warning of incoming threats and cuing them to speed up their engagement time.

I do not think either Sky Sabre or Starstreak/LMM are the best weapons for dealing with UAS though, especially the smaller tactical type. I still believe the we need a gun based system to compliment our missile capability. Luckily there are quite a n umber of such systems out there and Rheinmetall has one of the best and recently showed off its truck based version of its well known system. the same system has also been shown as part of a Boxer Mission Module, so in theory we could use the former for rear area defence, whilst using the latter to protect units engaging any enemy. Both should work with Starstreak/LMM units, maybe as actual mixed Regiments, with the Pedestal mounted version working with the Truck based version and a Stormer or better Boxer launcher for the latter. Both of these would be a near off the shelf acquisition, especially if the MAN HX series of truck were used. Addition Starstreak to a Mission Module for Boxer should be a simple task, as the Module and Chassis are stressed for weapon systems far heavier and that exert far greater forces that this systems would impose on the platform. Another advantage of using Boxer would be that it will be far less cramped than the Stormer as well as being able to carry more reloads.

If all of the above came to fruition, for the first time the British Army would be protected by a fully integrated all weather, day/night Ground based air defence system, something long overdue.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by TSharpe28 »

Normal CAMM for Falklands ER for 3rd Div. Also, 12 RA has Martlet to deal with UAVs.


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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

I would be surprised if LMM actually replaced Starstreak as each missile has a different primary target. If this is the case in my opinion it is a big mistake. Regarding Sky Sabre and CAMM-ER, surely the latter would be better for the Falklands and a combination of both for the protection of units in both 1st and Second Division as well as fixed sites like RAF stations and forward operating airfields.

We need to relearn how to protect our ground forces from air attack in situations where air superiority is not in place. MANPADS need to be spread out to combat Regiments and Battalions, complimented by a SPAAG platform. What appears to be happening doesn't seem logical or sensible. I would suggest a Platoon of four SPAAG and four SP SAMs both mounted on a platform like Boxer, for each unit in the Heavy BCTs and the same number of systems, this time truck mounted on a platform like Bushmaster for the Light BCTS. Very light units like the Royal Marines, 16 AA BCT and the new Ranger Regiment would mainly use the shoulder fire version of Starstreak/LMM, but have access to the SP version if required..

As far as Royal Artillery Air Defence Regiments I see the Army needing a minimum of three, with two operating protected vehicles carrying Sky Sabre and one Regiment operating a trailer mounted version for the protection of static sites. The latter could be manned mainly by Reservists bit the first two need to be Regular. A further Regiment would be a joint Army and Royal Air Force unit and that would operate the much needed long range air defence SAM system that would also have BMD capabilities.

Looking at Ukraine, the Russian Army is supposed to have one of the deadliest GBAD networks in the World as well as air superiority yet it is still failing to protect its ground units from air attack, be it mainly from UAS. How are our two planned Regiments, one with Sky Sabre (six to eight Batteries) and one Regular Regiment with Stormer Starstreak/LMM (eight Batteries I believe), backed up by a reserve Regiment with Pedestal Mounter Starstreak/LMM supposed to cover our dispersed and rapidly moving units from 1st, 3rd and 6th Division against UAS, aircraft and missiles? It just doesn't add up!!

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I think Future Soldier had many good ideas but too many capability gaps today / in the near futyre to pay for the promised equipment in the future. The invasion of Ukraine has shown we need to elimiate or at last minimise those capbility gaps. Air defence needs additional funding, as does logistics, strategic and tactical air transport, systems integration plus the basics of acquiring new MBT, AFV, APC and SPG.....

Disapointing that no additional funds allocated to Defence in Chancellor's Spring Statement. Let's hope it is coming in ful 2022 Budget.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by TSharpe28 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 00:19 I think Future Soldier had many good ideas but too many capability gaps today / in the near futyre to pay for the promised equipment in the future. The invasion of Ukraine has shown we need to elimiate or at last minimise those capbility gaps. Air defence needs additional funding, as does logistics, strategic and tactical air transport, systems integration plus the basics of acquiring new MBT, AFV, APC and SPG.....

Disapointing that no additional funds allocated to Defence in Chancellor's Spring Statement. Let's hope it is coming in ful 2022 Budget.
Future soldier is formed from Army 2020 Refine. The gaps happened long ago, not sure how there can be a magical boost in air defence immediately.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Who said immediately. The discussion about UK Defence spending in the aftermath of invasion of Ukraine cuts across many threads and have said before that whilst in the short term certain cuts can be postponed/cancelled, it will be in the longer term that will need to invest to acquire new equipment. It will be several years before we can invest sufficiently to get this layered air defence.

So please do't go throwing around words like magical and immediately.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by TSharpe28 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 11:08 Who said immediately. The discussion about UK Defence spending in the aftermath of invasion of Ukraine cuts across many threads and have said before that whilst in the short term certain cuts can be postponed/cancelled, it will be in the longer term that will need to invest to acquire new equipment. It will be several years before we can invest sufficiently to get this layered air defence.

So please do't go throwing around words like magical and immediately.
So please learn not to lecture.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

When it comes to GBAD the way forward must be to form a mixed RA/RAF Regt unit on Rapier FSC and keep it on the Falklands this system should be good for another 5 years given the threat there

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

TSharpe28 wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 13:16
wargame_insomniac wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 11:08 Who said immediately. The discussion about UK Defence spending in the aftermath of invasion of Ukraine cuts across many threads and have said before that whilst in the short term certain cuts can be postponed/cancelled, it will be in the longer term that will need to invest to acquire new equipment. It will be several years before we can invest sufficiently to get this layered air defence.

So please do't go throwing around words like magical and immediately.
So please learn not to lecture.
I didn't realise I was. Thank you for the feedback. I thought I was just adding my opinion as many others do.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Dahedd »

Steering away from missiles for a second how accurate ar range is the chain gun on the likes of the Apache?

Given the huge increase in drones is it not a future prerequisite to have as many vehicles as possible able to detect & engage UAVs. Something like dedicated guided 50cal or bigger on as many vehicles as possible to counter these.


Or do we need something bigger like the Thales rapidFire system using the 40mm CTA.
These users liked the author Dahedd for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Dahedd wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 10:42 Steering away from missiles for a second how accurate ar range is the chain gun on the likes of the Apache?

Given the huge increase in drones is it not a future prerequisite to have as many vehicles as possible able to detect & engage UAVs. Something like dedicated guided 50cal or bigger on as many vehicles as possible to counter these.


Or do we need something bigger like the Thales rapidFire system using the 40mm CTA.
I'm pretty sure the Probably of hitting a medium sized drone at range over 1km without an Airburst round is incredibly low unless you're using a CIWS approach.

At close in there may be some adaption to the 40mm GMG possible to create a low budget solution.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Lord Jim »

Surely the main expense of and SPAAG system purchased would be the detection and FCS, with the gun coming next. The latter really needs to be either a smaller calibre Gatling style weapon with a very high rate of fire, even a .50cal Gatling could possibly do the job, or a medium calibre weapon with ammunition with "Airburst" capability. There are quite a large number of SPAAG System available, many of which could be easily installed in a Boxer Mission Module or an a Truck Bed. It should be possible to have a system in service by the end of 2025 as long as we do not try to reinvent the wheel.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
KiwiMuzz

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 11:19
Dahedd wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 10:42 Steering away from missiles for a second how accurate ar range is the chain gun on the likes of the Apache?

Given the huge increase in drones is it not a future prerequisite to have as many vehicles as possible able to detect & engage UAVs. Something like dedicated guided 50cal or bigger on as many vehicles as possible to counter these.


Or do we need something bigger like the Thales rapidFire system using the 40mm CTA.
I'm pretty sure the Probably of hitting a medium sized drone at range over 1km without an Airburst round is incredibly low unless you're using a CIWS approach.

At close in there may be some adaption to the 40mm GMG possible to create a low budget solution.
Have posted previously on the US Army EAPS, Extended Area Protection and Survivability, programme using 50mm Bushmaster III guns to develop and demonstrate technologies that provide short range mobile 360 degree hemispherical protection from drones and to Counter- Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar, C-RAM, and other aerial threats.

The fire-control radar used was a low cost CW interferometer radar (interferometers use multiple receive antennas to enhance angular measurements for centimetre tracking accuracy), a fire control computer and a radio frequency transmitter and receiver. The 50mm course corrected shell with a tantalum-tungsten alloy liner to form forward-propelled penetrators. To keep cost of 50mm shell low a thruster used for course correction activated by the very accurate FCR/FCC, no 'expensive' proximity fuse needed. Bushmaster 200 rpm fired in 10 round bursts, to destroy UAVs etc at a range of ~1 km and at a height of ~5,000 ft (possibility Bushmaster III could be converted from the 50 x 228 to the 50 x319 mm, the SuperShot 50 cartridge).

Early prototype tested successfully in 2015 but US Army under its overarching IFPC, Indirect Fires Protection Capability programme chose instead to go with its IM-SHORAD a Stryker with four Stingers, 30mm cannon etc and the four Israeli RADA radars for 360 degree coverage, now prototyping 50 kW laser variant to take out drones and a future 300 kW version with enough power to take out RAM and also the Enduring Shield with 16-20? launcher cells with Sidewinder missiles to be tied in with its A4 radars and IBCS to counter both RAM and cruise missiles.

PS Notable in Ukraine how successful they appear to have been in shooting down the Russian attack helicopters.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I still think the best way forward is a updated version of Stormer HVM on Boxer and Rapid Ranger HVM on Bushmaster & Jackal
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
Little JDahedd

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 13:16 For me I still think the best way forward is a updated version of Stormer HVM on Boxer and Rapid Ranger HVM on Bushmaster & Jackal
Not disagreeing plus the Sky Sabre, but do you think an additional similar 'low' cost system to the US Army 50mm EAPS needed to protect the troops when under attack from recon drones and RAM, rockets, artillery shells and mortars, understand the HVM is not cheap missile especially in the numbers that maybe required, perhaps in 1000s.

The wake up call dates back to 2015 when said two Ukrainian armoured columns were decimated by use of recon drones and then RAM attack by the Russian equipped Russian speaking eastern Ukrainian rebels.

Post Reply