Ground Based Air Defence
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
That reads as quite the contradiction.
I don't suppose many systems would use a proximity fuze anyway, if you have a range (for LRF or radar) then a timed projectile is fairly straightforward once you resolve your means of programming.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Using a well established, in service gun should be a core requirement to keep costs down. We should need to concentrate funding on the Sensors and FCS to make sure it hits what it aims at, but again trying to use components already developed..
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
For all the money that was poured into developing CTA I would expect Ajax to be able to engage UAVs with airburst rounds.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Not seen any recent updates on the qualification of the Airburst fuze round. That was the original for ground targets, there's also been publicity for an anti-air Airburst round with greater kinetic energy (for both range and fragmentation).
Most detection systems appear to be radar based, something which AJAX lacks (unless you count artillery equipment with Royal Artillery) and probably wouldn't be equipped with unless specifically working in the SPAAG role.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
This is the vehicle I was referring to earlier. Thales system with the same 40mm CTA as Warrior & Ajax
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Out of interest pic of the US Army M-SHORAD Stryker with its RADA radar and its four 0.5 metre dia antennas at each corner to give 360 degree coverage, the second pic the Technovative Applications CW interferometer radar used with the 50mm cannon EAPS prototype, specs - interferometric radar angle accuracy (x,y,z) < 0.3 mils @ 20dB SNR; range accuracy < 0.2 metres; track 6 threats & 10 outgoing interceptors/threat.RunningStrong wrote: ↑31 Mar 2022, 22:26Not seen any recent updates on the qualification of the Airburst fuze round. That was the original for ground targets, there's also been publicity for an anti-air Airburst round with greater kinetic energy (for both range and fragmentation).
Most detection systems appear to be radar based, something which AJAX lacks (unless you count artillery equipment with Royal Artillery) and probably wouldn't be equipped with unless specifically working in the SPAAG role.
As RunningStrong would infer from above a radar is a necessity to target aerial targets including drones and RAM (Grad rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds) to enable a reasonable Pk, so think Ajax CTA 40mm airburst round without radar will have near minimal Pk. Remember Phalanx installed with its inbuilt radars in Afghanistan to protect bases from rocket and mortar attacks plus the small lightweight AN/TPQ 49 radars to provide continuous 360-degree surveillance for RAM attacks.
PS It would appear M-SHORAD has limited capability against drones and RAM as it has only a launcher for four Stingers, think 30 mm cannon not powerful enough to be very effective (the second four tube launcher on its left side is for Hellfires). The EAPS with its 50mm cannon should be powerful enough to take out both drones and RAM at relatively short range ~2 km, the M-SHORAD advantage with its Stingers is that it can take out aerial targets, eg drone, helicopters etc at twice the range, but as said limited as only four missiles, would appear need both guns as well as HVM.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
AJAX would be limited to using the electro-optic sensors to track the target, but detection may be possible through the laser warning system or possibly even the acoustic detection system.NickC wrote: ↑01 Apr 2022, 09:26 As RunningStrong would infer from above a radar is a necessity to target aerial targets including drones and RAM (Grad rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds) to enable a reasonable Pk, so think Ajax CTA 40mm airburst round without radar will have near minimal Pk. .
There is another concern, and that's the operation speed required in a manner turret would be at best uncomfortable and at worst dangerous for the crew occupants if the system was operating in an automated detect and engagement mode. Drones being far less of an issue.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
The majority of modern GBAD systems need to operate in full automatic mode to be able to react fast enough to engage fleeting or fast moving small targets. Therefore it would probably be far better for any SPAAG to use an unmanned turret with the crew inside the hull if the vehicle. Ajax without additional sensors will be a poor candidate for the role, but useful in a last ditch attempt to engage a target they have managed to locate and identify with its EO sensors. An airburst, sensor fused round would still be a worth while investment though for engaging ground targets in cover or buildings for example.
Rather than use the CT40, we would do better to use one of either the 35mm or 30mm SPAAG systems being developed by Rheinmetall, which have been very successful in test and impressive in demonstrations. These weapons have become specialised counter UAS weapon systems even though that was not their original purpose. Whether we will be able to develop a gun based C-RAM platform is a different matter. Nations have developed such system for static defence but the platforms a large and not really built for cross country operations. Energy based systems are probably the way ahead and we would do well to closely study US developments in this field.
In the short term though the British Army should be concentrating on finding the resources to double the number of Sky Sabre Batteries it has on order as well as integrating CAMM-ER / Albatross-NG with the system. This should only require a software patch for the Fire Control Systems as the Launch Vehicle can already handle the new Missile and the whole system id radar agonistic.
The mind set in the MoD that they are concentrating on delivering last years Integrated Review, if unaltered is going to bire the British Army in the Arse. Inflation is already going to make the existing Equipment Plan unaffordable, but make it more unlikely that the Army will be able to fill the many capability gaps it will have even by 2030. It is as if the MoD is blind to the fact that the Army basically failed to invest in Peer level warfighting needs for over two decades and the current EP fall well short of fixing this. The British Army has never been really strong on GBAD, but the new and increasing threats from the air means not increasing what is already planned could spell serious hurt of the Army in any future conflict where Air Supremacy is not assured.
Rather than use the CT40, we would do better to use one of either the 35mm or 30mm SPAAG systems being developed by Rheinmetall, which have been very successful in test and impressive in demonstrations. These weapons have become specialised counter UAS weapon systems even though that was not their original purpose. Whether we will be able to develop a gun based C-RAM platform is a different matter. Nations have developed such system for static defence but the platforms a large and not really built for cross country operations. Energy based systems are probably the way ahead and we would do well to closely study US developments in this field.
In the short term though the British Army should be concentrating on finding the resources to double the number of Sky Sabre Batteries it has on order as well as integrating CAMM-ER / Albatross-NG with the system. This should only require a software patch for the Fire Control Systems as the Launch Vehicle can already handle the new Missile and the whole system id radar agonistic.
The mind set in the MoD that they are concentrating on delivering last years Integrated Review, if unaltered is going to bire the British Army in the Arse. Inflation is already going to make the existing Equipment Plan unaffordable, but make it more unlikely that the Army will be able to fill the many capability gaps it will have even by 2030. It is as if the MoD is blind to the fact that the Army basically failed to invest in Peer level warfighting needs for over two decades and the current EP fall well short of fixing this. The British Army has never been really strong on GBAD, but the new and increasing threats from the air means not increasing what is already planned could spell serious hurt of the Army in any future conflict where Air Supremacy is not assured.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
March 31, 2022 BAE Inc PR "BAE Systems breaks new ground with successful test of its Multiple Object Tracking Radar - BAE Systems successfully completed prototype tests of its Multiple Object Tracking [interferometry] Radar (iMOTR), a mobile instrumentation radar that provides precise radar data on multiple objects."
Looks same low cost tech as with the Technovative Applications CW interferometer radar used with the US Army 50mm cannon EAPS prototype, though the highly accurate iMOTR funded by DARPA for use at test ranges.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/articl ... king-radar
Looks same low cost tech as with the Technovative Applications CW interferometer radar used with the US Army 50mm cannon EAPS prototype, though the highly accurate iMOTR funded by DARPA for use at test ranges.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/articl ... king-radar
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Just a reminder of how Oerlikon AHAED ammunition is against a multitude of targets, and why I believe it should be a priority purchase for the British Army to compliment its Starstreak/LLM and Sky Sabre Missile based GBAD systems.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
A few of these plus a CAMM system and say 2 container NEMO 120 mortars would be a good defence for a forward base all movable and usable on MAN 8x8 trucks
However in terms of fast moving light and heavy infantry Starstreak HVM form Rapid Ranger and up dated Stormer HVM are good but a gun system needs work yes we can use this system on Boxer but what do we use for the light BCT's
However in terms of fast moving light and heavy infantry Starstreak HVM form Rapid Ranger and up dated Stormer HVM are good but a gun system needs work yes we can use this system on Boxer but what do we use for the light BCT's
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Personally think the Rheinmetall Millennium 35 mm is too big/expensive for use with armoured column, more suited as part of stationary air defence system as used in the UAE, IIRC they bought 100 systems, Millennium would be my preference to use on ships instead of either the Phalanx or Bofors 40 as think more effective eg Millennium fitted to the Iver Huitfeldt class, 2015 contract for three $21.5 million, using the installed Saab Ceros FCR
The smaller the protective area the more efficient the gun based system becomes with their capability to take out both RAM and drones compared to missiles, why i liked at the US Army EAPS, Extended Area Protection and Survivability 50mm gun system as it was less expensive system than missiles. The US Army did fund the Lockheed MHTK, Miniature Hit to Kill missile <5 lbs but it just became just too expensive if had to take out a thousand of RAM, the other option is lasers, but again the drawbacks, not operational in bad weather, low cloud, rain and the snow in Ukraine etc, US Army funding 50 kW laser prototypes on Stryker but their limited power capability limits them to drones, not powerful enough to shoot down RAM, presume why also funding a more powerful 300 kW lasers speculating with enough power to take out RAM, which expect by then laser getting very expensive.
The smaller the protective area the more efficient the gun based system becomes with their capability to take out both RAM and drones compared to missiles, why i liked at the US Army EAPS, Extended Area Protection and Survivability 50mm gun system as it was less expensive system than missiles. The US Army did fund the Lockheed MHTK, Miniature Hit to Kill missile <5 lbs but it just became just too expensive if had to take out a thousand of RAM, the other option is lasers, but again the drawbacks, not operational in bad weather, low cloud, rain and the snow in Ukraine etc, US Army funding 50 kW laser prototypes on Stryker but their limited power capability limits them to drones, not powerful enough to shoot down RAM, presume why also funding a more powerful 300 kW lasers speculating with enough power to take out RAM, which expect by then laser getting very expensive.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Well the Rheinmetall/Oerlikon weapon system has been both mounted and fired successfully on both the Boxer and the MAN HX truck
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Thanks, any thoughts on cost, think Boxer variant ~£10 million each, expect MAN HX ~£7 million?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
What chance that it's air transportable? Or will it be a module-off job?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Not sure about the Boxer version, but the truck mounted one should easily fit in a A400.
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I came across this article earlier and thought it was interesting given the previous discussions:
Apparently some flexibility in the design able to include different weapon systems:
This would improve the firepower of Boxer considerably over the MG that we seem to have settled with. Did think it intresting that even the Lithuanians had better armanent on their Boxer.
People with expertise in this area will no doubt be able to provide more detailed commentary on the various weapon options shown, especially on the 2nd link. But being abl to uparm the UK Boxers to have as a minium 1*30mm cannon, 2-4 Anti Tank Missiles and 2-4 Anti Air Missiles does seem to me to be a good idea.
Apparently some flexibility in the design able to include different weapon systems:
This would improve the firepower of Boxer considerably over the MG that we seem to have settled with. Did think it intresting that even the Lithuanians had better armanent on their Boxer.
People with expertise in this area will no doubt be able to provide more detailed commentary on the various weapon options shown, especially on the 2nd link. But being abl to uparm the UK Boxers to have as a minium 1*30mm cannon, 2-4 Anti Tank Missiles and 2-4 Anti Air Missiles does seem to me to be a good idea.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I would still prefer the Rheinmetall system as it has radar as well as excellent optics and in its 30mm version can also mount MANPADS. The system shown above would be nice to fit to a version of the MRV(P) we a still hopefully purchasing though. Nice if it could use the same 30mm as the Rheinmetall systems but I believe that is substantially larger. Maybe reduce the autocannon to a 25mm?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
The first photos of the UK donated Stormer SAM missile systems in Ukrainian Army service
#Ukraine: The first photos of a UK-supplied Stormer HVM short-range air defense system in Ukraine - reportedly, 5 of these systems were donated in total.
The main role of the Stormer on the battlefield is to protect troops from attack helicopters and low-flying aircraft. https://t.co/ym0QCRajSS
#Ukraine: The first photos of a UK-supplied Stormer HVM short-range air defense system in Ukraine - reportedly, 5 of these systems were donated in total.
The main role of the Stormer on the battlefield is to protect troops from attack helicopters and low-flying aircraft. https://t.co/ym0QCRajSS
- These users liked the author leonard for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I think the renders for the Polish T31 derivative also sport it. But continuing on from @LS's enthusiasm for Skyranger, it does come in two calibers - giving options for sizing the turret. Just like AMOS puts on 4 t on the vehicle, but NEMO only 2.5.
However, as we know turrets are expensive. Partly as they come as sensor rich these days. On the other hand, there is a need not only to be highly mobile, but also to operate in a dispersed manner. The article in Firearmsblog that the below quote is from was about the new shoulder-fired weapon, but I see the mini-turret as a better option for the current .50 cal plans; note that AB is available
"Rheinmetall 40mm Medium Velocity (MV) ammunition.
The new MV ammunition has a significantly increased velocity and a flat trajectory, allowing targets to be engaged more quickly and increasing the effective range of the system to 900m. Combined with the broad spectrum of Rheinmetall’s 40mm LV/MV ammunition portfolio [as well as upper layers of AD solutions offered;ADDED to the quote], the infantry user achieves unprecedented flexibility and effectiveness on the battlefield of the future.
Due to the 40mm MV ammunition, the development of the SSW40 is closely related to the turret independent secondary weapon system (TSWA, Turmunabhängige Sekundärwaffenanlage in German) for the Puma infantry fighting vehicle."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
And from the frontlines in Ukraine we have the first confirmed kills from the UK donated Stormer HVM missile systems in Ukrainian Army service .
-
- Member
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
The Ukrainians are claiming that Stormer has also downed an SU-25 but no proof as yet.