Ground Based Air Defence

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 05 May 2023, 23:54
Tempest414 wrote: 05 May 2023, 12:25 I would agree but we will need more SHORAD in the Infantry battalions maybe a Troop with 4 AD Boxers and a Radar Boxer all liked in and yes we need to make use of the CTA-40's we have laying around
Been saying for years that every IFV has to have a secondary robust AD capability, with the emphasis on robust...
Armed with a good Thermal and a choice of weapons on a RWS, and you have some capability. CT40 improves on that significantly, but fewer rounds available.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 05 May 2023, 23:54 Been saying for years that every IFV has to have a secondary robust AD capability, with the emphasis on robust...
But what do you mean by robust?
Timmymagic wrote: 05 May 2023, 23:54 All the ingredients are there....modern autocannon with programmable ammunition, cheaper missiles coupled with automatic guidance from fire control systems, IRST like ADAD, sensors from APS could also be used...
Got to agree there, which is why I think the British Army phasing out IFVs was madness. At least Ajax has that kind of capability*, and a panoramic sight can work as an ADAD with the right software.

Possibly not have every IFV set up for GBAD, but have it so you can have some in any given number in that role.

* save missiles, but that's another BA peculiarity. A launcher that can support both ATGW and SAMs would seem sensible. If you could also have sufficient pointing accuracy with it to fire unguided rockets, that would seem useful too.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Zeno »

The Ukrainian forces have claimed to have shot down a Khinzal hypersonic missile with the newly acquired Patriot system if confirmed this would be a first ,but are there any other systems who may also be capable to do this?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by new guy »

Zeno wrote: 07 May 2023, 00:01 The Ukrainian forces have claimed to have shot down a Khinzal hypersonic missile with the newly acquired Patriot system if confirmed this would be a first ,but are there any other systems who may also be capable to do this?
From memory Khinzal is only the air launched version of a short range ballistic missile which means it is predictable, it only goes hyper sonic in space, No manoeuvres
at all, and because its short range it never gets to the kind of speeds that ICBM's do. Completely different from HGV or HCM. I'm pretty sure that every reentry vehicle from space goes hyper sonic so yeah.
Hyper sonic missiles aren't really a term for a missile that can go hyper sonic. It's more a term for a missile that has sustained hyper sonic speeds for the majority of its flight up unit the time it strikes, while being manoeuvrable. Khinzal is none of these things.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote: 06 May 2023, 12:10 But what do you mean by robust?
IFV's have always had a secondary anti-air capability with autocannons against helos in particular.

But...its not really trained, the ammo was not ideal, turrets didn't have high enough slew rate or elevation, appropriate sensors not mounted etc.

With CTA40mm we finally had a good gun for the job, long range, accurate with airburst ammo available and dual feed. The problem is the rest of the ingredients are not there...
new guy wrote: 07 May 2023, 07:37 From memory Khinzal is only the air launched version of a short range ballistic missile which means it is predictable, it only goes hyper sonic in space, No manoeuvres
Khinzal manoeuvres....its an Iskander missile converted to air-launch. It is hypersonic still in the atmosphere, although ballistic it does not reach space in its trajectory, which is very shallow.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

Zeno wrote: 07 May 2023, 00:01 The Ukrainian forces have claimed to have shot down a Khinzal hypersonic missile with the newly acquired Patriot system if confirmed this would be a first ,but are there any other systems who may also be capable to do this?
Suggestions that the Khinzal misfired, doubt that a Patriot has the capability to take out a fully operational Mach 10+ Khinzal, currently a lot of pressure from US Congress on the MDA to come up with a Glide Phase Interceptor, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each won contracts to continue developing hypersonic weapons interceptors.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 May 2023, 12:24 IFV's have always had a secondary anti-air capability with autocannons against helos in particular.

But...its not really trained, the ammo was not ideal, turrets didn't have high enough slew rate or elevation, appropriate sensors not mounted etc.

With CTA40mm we finally had a good gun for the job, long range, accurate with airburst ammo available and dual feed. The problem is the rest of the ingredients are not there...
I think the main reason that IFV anti-air wasn't practiced was that they were hopelessly outclassed by the target set. Attack helicopters and fast air outranged gun-armed systems by a considerable margin, hence why even gun-based AAA was being phased out despite having all the sensors, slew and elevation rate etc.

The state of play now is that IFVs have better fire control and sensors and the threat targets have become considerably easier for gun-based systems to hit.
Slew rate is less important as the targets are slower and there are more systems available so slewing to a target within a set amount of time is less critical. On top of that modern AFV traverse is hardly slow.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I also think that recent conflicts including Russian invasion of Ukraine and Saudi-Houthi War have shown that you need a variety of GBAD to counter the wide variety of missiles, munitions and drones that are bing used.

Where drones can cost in thousands, not worth using anti-aircraft missiles costing millions to take them out:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... 71dc5616f2

The UK armed forces do need a variety of mobile GBAD. Sky Sabre with CAMM is a good start to cover against medium ranged threats, but we still need both mobile longer ranged anti-air missiles as well as updated IFV's with both autocannon and Starstreak / Martlett (to replace the Stormer HVM given to Ukraine).

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Zeno »

Doesn't ground based electronic warfare offer some solutions to the uav,s as demonstrated in the Ukraine war
https://www.businessinsider.com/drones- ... are-2022-7

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 May 2023, 20:27 I also think that recent conflicts including Russian invasion of Ukraine and Saudi-Houthi War have shown that you need a variety of GBAD to counter the wide variety of missiles, munitions and drones that are bing used.

Where drones can cost in thousands, not worth using anti-aircraft missiles costing millions to take them out:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... 71dc5616f2

The UK armed forces do need a variety of mobile GBAD. Sky Sabre with CAMM is a good start to cover against medium ranged threats, but we still need both mobile longer ranged anti-air missiles as well as updated IFV's with both autocannon and Starstreak / Martlett (to replace the Stormer HVM given to Ukraine).
Similar story re Israeli very high cost of missile defence, a few figures
2020 Israel asked for and was granted an additional $1 billion US military aid in 2021 to fund Iron Dome missiles which were used to defend the country during last major conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, reported Hamas fired 4,428 rockets at Israel in the space of 11 days, 540 projectiles landed in Gaza, 1,577 were intercepted by Iron Dome missiles at a roughly 90 percent success rate for projectiles headed toward built-up areas and roughly 250 hit populated areas inside Israel . Reported that US Army paying $180,000 for the Tamir missiles they bought for the two Iron Dome batteries Congress ordered. So assuming 1,577 targets at 90 percent and two missiles per target approx. a total of 3,500 missiles expended, $630 million whereas estimated cost of Hamas rockets estimated at between $300 to $800 each, average $550 x 4,428 = $2.4 million, less than 1% cost of defence.
E&OE :angel:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 08 May 2023, 11:33
wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 May 2023, 20:27 I also think that recent conflicts including Russian invasion of Ukraine and Saudi-Houthi War have shown that you need a variety of GBAD to counter the wide variety of missiles, munitions and drones that are bing used.

Where drones can cost in thousands, not worth using anti-aircraft missiles costing millions to take them out:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... 71dc5616f2

The UK armed forces do need a variety of mobile GBAD. Sky Sabre with CAMM is a good start to cover against medium ranged threats, but we still need both mobile longer ranged anti-air missiles as well as updated IFV's with both autocannon and Starstreak / Martlett (to replace the Stormer HVM given to Ukraine).
Similar story re Israeli very high cost of missile defence, a few figures
2020 Israel asked for and was granted an additional $1 billion US military aid in 2021 to fund Iron Dome missiles which were used to defend the country during last major conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, reported Hamas fired 4,428 rockets at Israel in the space of 11 days, 540 projectiles landed in Gaza, 1,577 were intercepted by Iron Dome missiles at a roughly 90 percent success rate for projectiles headed toward built-up areas and roughly 250 hit populated areas inside Israel . Reported that US Army paying $180,000 for the Tamir missiles they bought for the two Iron Dome batteries Congress ordered. So assuming 1,577 targets at 90 percent and two missiles per target approx. a total of 3,500 missiles expended, $630 million whereas estimated cost of Hamas rockets estimated at between $300 to $800 each, average $550 x 4,428 = $2.4 million, less than 1% cost of defence.
E&OE :angel:
Dumb argument. It's the cost of the damage done by any particular weapon that counts, not the cost to acquire. Medieval knights spent thousands on armor to keep out arrows costing pennies. Millions of other examples today and through history.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
new guy

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 08 May 2023, 14:07 Dumb argument. It's the cost of the damage done by any particular weapon that counts, not the cost to acquire. Medieval knights spent thousands on armor to keep out arrows costing pennies. Millions of other examples today and through history.
We're also on the cusp of laser and microwave based defences against simple munitions like cheap drones, rockets and mortar rounds...

At that point the cost pendulum swings in the other direction dramatically....laser shots are a couple of £'s each....

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: 08 May 2023, 14:07 Dumb argument. It's the cost of the damage done by any particular weapon that counts, not the cost to acquire. Medieval knights spent thousands on armor to keep out arrows costing pennies. Millions of other examples today and through history.
Would point out at the Battle of Agincourt that particular 'dumb argument' was spectacularly successful, the arrows costing pennies won out over the French medieval knights hugely expensive armour :angel:
Not to say defence not a priority but was highlighting the current major problem of the imbalance between cost of attack and defence.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Phil Sayers »

NickC wrote: 07 May 2023, 13:15 Suggestions that the Khinzal misfired, doubt that a Patriot has the capability to take out a fully operational Mach 10+ Khinzal, currently a lot of pressure from US Congress on the MDA to come up with a Glide Phase Interceptor, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each won contracts to continue developing hypersonic weapons interceptors.
US officials are now saying that they have 'high confidence' it was indeed successfully downed by Patriot PAC-3:

https://t.co/NAz0ytEag6

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by mr.fred »

NickC wrote: 08 May 2023, 16:08 Would point out at the Battle of Agincourt that particular 'dumb argument' was spectacularly successful, the arrows costing pennies won out over the French medieval knights hugely expensive armour
Equally, the cost ratio wasn't exactly a factor in the outcome of that particular battle. In any case, those arrows didn't arrive in the French lines by themselves.

Many knights fell to cheap daggers, but I don't think anyone would advocate them as the sole armament of field army as a result?

With the cost of attack vs defence, you have to factor costs of mounting no defence, what you could do instead with the same resource and also how much the attack costs relative to the ability of the attacker to pay for it.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

Phil Sayers wrote: 08 May 2023, 17:28
NickC wrote: 07 May 2023, 13:15 Suggestions that the Khinzal misfired, doubt that a Patriot has the capability to take out a fully operational Mach 10+ Khinzal, currently a lot of pressure from US Congress on the MDA to come up with a Glide Phase Interceptor, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each won contracts to continue developing hypersonic weapons interceptors.
US officials are now saying that they have 'high confidence' it was indeed successfully downed by Patriot PAC-3:

https://t.co/NAz0ytEag6
The fog of war



As far as know no Patriot test has ever engaged in a trial with an approx Mach 12 missile (Kinzhal launched from a Mach 3 Mig-31). The factor that makes ballistic missiles so hard to intercept is their speed (eg Trident approx. Mach 19), so even though ground launched Iskander-M is the same design, it is much easier to intercept a Mach 6 Iskander -M compared to a Kinzhal.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 08 May 2023, 16:08
Ron5 wrote: 08 May 2023, 14:07 Dumb argument. It's the cost of the damage done by any particular weapon that counts, not the cost to acquire. Medieval knights spent thousands on armor to keep out arrows costing pennies. Millions of other examples today and through history.
Would point out at the Battle of Agincourt that particular 'dumb argument' was spectacularly successful, the arrows costing pennies won out over the French medieval knights hugely expensive armour :angel:
Not to say defence not a priority but was highlighting the current major problem of the imbalance between cost of attack and defence.
And my point goes sailing over your head by 20k feet or more. To repeat: it's the fact that the knights spent so much on defense, not its effectiveness.

BTW not a problem and not particularly current.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Halidon »

Some good news about that Stormer which took a hit in Ukraine

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

The German led urgent European Sky Shield Initiative for BMD driven by the Russian missile attacks on Ukranian cities, which initially 14 NATO countries plus Finland signed the non-binding letter of intent to join on 13 October 2022, including the UK, mention that Austria, Sweden and Switzerland have also expressed interest to sign, though which cities which would be covered by the anti-missile protection are classified top secret.

System based on the Israeli Arrow 3 exo-atmospheric hypersonic anti-ballistic missile developed with US funding by IAI and Boeing to protect Israel from Iranian MRBMs, with an IAI/Elta - Hensoldt radar, IAI BMC. Germany in June approved the awarding 4 billion Euro contract to IAI, also complete system envisages Patriot and Iris-T. Notable that France and Italy have not signed as the Eurosam Franco/Italian SAMP/T - Aster missile was not included which upset Macron.

At the recent Paris Air Show a research note said SAMP/T has a “poor radar,” which has a shorter range than the Aster 30 missile (that also applies to the current Patriot radar with the Patriot MSE missiles, new AESA GaN LTAMDS Patriot radar in full development). That “clear weakness” means a “short engagement time.” Thales and Leonardo are developing new radars for their respective SAMP/T NG with Aster Block I NT missiles though the research paper expressed scepticism on that approach.

https://sldinfo.com/2023/07/germany-and ... 23-update/

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by NickC »

The Armchair Soldier wrote: 15 Sep 2015, 17:48 DSEI 2015: Thales Unveils Next-Generation Lightweight Multiple Launcher
Image
Thales Belfast has developed a next-generation variant of its Lightweight Multiple Launcher (LML) to leverage both Starstreak and Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) effectors for day/night-enabled multimission engagement capability.

Unveiled at the DSEI exhibition in London on 14 September 2015, the new Lightweight Multiple Launcher - Next Generation (LML-NG) replaces the legacy LML Direct Optic View capability with new head and sensor assemblies, and delivers a ready-to-fire surface-to-air and surface-to-surface capability in one launch package.
Read More: http://www.janes.com/article/54273/dsei ... e-launcher
Driven by Ukraine war last month US Army tested at Yuma five different systems to take out kamikaze drones of up to Group 3 size, 1,320 lbs at a slant range of 2 km, drones which on occasions have been reported as very effective.

One of the participants was Thales with the LMM/Martlet with tripod system to mount on light vehicles, possibly a variant of above, another three were with systems using the BAE Inc APKWS which did quite well (L3Harris was awarded a contract to supply their Vampire system to Ukraine which uses the APKWS, don't know if it has been delivered as yet)

Totally different was the Lockheed entry with their Mobile Radio Frequency-Integrated UAS Suppressor (MORFIUS), a tube launched UAV with a microwave HPM, reported the challenge with it was of distance and getting it close enough to the target for the limited power of the microwave to be effective.

No mention of the fifth system and of any 25/30mm cannon, don't think 20mm would have the necessary power for 2 km range.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/spu ... s-systems/

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote: 14 Jul 2023, 11:33 (L3Harris was awarded a contract to supply their Vampire system to Ukraine which uses the APKWS, don't know if it has been delivered as yet)
Yes they've been seen in Ukraine
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
NickC

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by BB85 »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gagadget.c ... and-a-amp/

Looks like the UK Poland joint venture will be called CAAM-MR with up to 100km range. I assume the booster will be significantly larger, but will be interesting to see if the UK adopts it across both the army and royal navy.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacTheLoneRanger

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

BB85 wrote: 20 Jul 2023, 18:05 Looks like the UK Poland joint venture will be called CAAM-MR with up to 100km range. I assume the booster will be significantly larger, but will be interesting to see if the UK adopts it across both the army and royal navy.
It was named that a few months ago. It's still being referred to as Future Common Missile (FCM) in official documents and I suspect will remain so until the programme bears fruit.

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

More detail on the UK/Poland Future Common Missile (CAMM-MR)

Range well in excess of 100km (>54nm) and engagement altitude >20km (>65,000ft) is getting into Patriot territory.





Article Text from radar.rp.pl - re-tweeted by MBDA Poland - Translation by Google Translate

https://radar.rp.pl/przemysl-obronny/ar ... akiet-camm

The long-range missile will expand the CAMM missile family

The family of British anti-aircraft radar-guided CAMM missiles will probably see the new CAMM-MR missile with a range well in excess of 100 km. MBDA UK confirms: preparations have started.

The start of analyzes and conceptual work aimed at the production of weapons more powerful than the current CAMM (Common Anti-air Modular Missile) and CAMM-ER missiles was announced to journalists from Poland by the heads of MBDA UK during last week's visit to the facilities in Bolton near Manchester. Adrian Monks, director of MBDA UK for business development in Poland, emphasized that inspiration for British constructors also comes from partners from the East:

Warsaw is very keen to have a missile in the future that uses proven and effective solutions of CAMM missiles, but it could hit targets at a greater distance than, for example, the ER version missile offered for the future "Narew" air shield, operating at a distance of about 45 km - he explains monks.

Necessary changes to the launcher

The analyzes of MBDA UK specialists show that the future long-range missile bearing the MR mark would be a new design with a mass much greater than the current, not exceeding 99 kg, classic CAMM effectors. Due to the larger dimensions of the new weapon, the structure of the iLouncher launcher would also be rebuilt - instead of 4 containers with missiles, the launch container would contain one CAMM MR missile.

There is a discussion among specialists whether to extend the range of the weapon, a special booster should be used in the propulsion system to increase the thrust.

These other decisions and decisions regarding the design of the missile are still before MBDA specialists - says Monks. - However, it is clear what we intend to achieve: the target is missiles with a range well over 100 km and capable of reaching a ceiling of about 20 km - he adds.

The British emphasize that it is very important, especially in the light of the war experience in Ukraine, to preserve all the advantages and capabilities of CAMM family effectors in the future CAMM-MR design. The unique cold-start technique of missiles makes it much easier, for example, to mask positions and hide launchers deployed in the field, experts say.

The great career of anti-aircraft missiles

Let's remind. Radar-guided CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles) missiles, which initially protected Royal Navy ships as a deck weapon, are now making a rapid career in ground-based anti-aircraft systems of the British and Italian armies.

CAMM missiles are very precise weapons capable of engaging fast targets such as cruise missiles and aircraft. In addition, it is extremely effective in destroying enemy combat drones.

The CAMM system is multi-channel, which means that it is able to track and fight a dozen or more targets at the same time. A single radar-guided CAMM missile weighing less than 1 ton can reach a speed of 3700 km/h and destroy fighters, unmanned aerial vehicles and even laser-guided precision bombs. CAMM/CAMM-ER are the only Western anti-aircraft missiles that use the so-called cold start.

Discreet and concealed pneumatic start

The CAMM rocket is first launched from the launch container by means of a pneumatic catapult, then its miniature rocket thrusters are activated, turning the missile towards the target, and only then the rocket thruster is activated. Thanks to this, the position of the launcher is difficult to detect, because the launch of missiles in the first phase of flight is not accompanied by a blast and fire of muzzle gases. In addition, the rockets are fired from vertical launchers, which shortens the reaction time and increases the ability to engage targets in a full 360-degree range. In addition, the rocket engine of the CAMM missiles uses the so-called insensitive fuel with the highest degree of security in this class of weapons.

According to Polish experts, CAMM and CAMM-ER anti-aircraft systems are currently among the most effective in NATO countries. The missiles are equipped with an active jamming-resistant radar guidance system. Also Polish elements of the missile set are introduced to the top technological shelf.

According to MBDA UK, future long-range CAMM MR missiles, the development of which is just beginning, could reach the state of operational readiness and supply allied arsenals only in the early 2030s.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
SW1wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Ground Based Air Defence

Post by Timmymagic »

Poland just put in a big order....

Remember this is seperate from their CAMM order for the Pilica system, which was at least 800 missiles....

Translation

Post Reply