MBDA (UK)

[Ron5]

Such is the claim.

The is one very consistent & glaring fact about all missile systems since the beginning of time: they never work in service as well as the brochures/services claim.

Sorry to pick on the Brits but my favorite example is Rapier. Used to attract the same level of hype as Brimstone gets today. However when used in one of its primary roles in the Falklands, air defence of a beachhead, it was a total failure.

Apart from history lessons, defending escorted ships against anti-ship missiles is a hugely difficult problem. Hard enough defending yourself, let alone your pal.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As far as I remember, they upgraded the radar after "when used in one of its primary roles in the Falklands, air defence of a beachhead, it was a total failure" by drawing on work done by the RN and the end result was much better
- no similar testing "in anger" though

[Ron5]

A few years ago I had a chat with a former REME who used to work on Rapier. His story was that the hide bound generals didn't want a radar Rapier because that was way too hi tech and insisted on a human aimer. Took the Falklands to dispel that notion I guess.

[Timmymagic]

Sorry the quote option appears to be not working:

Ron
"You might be thinking that CAMM-ER would extend coverage to escorted ships. You may be correct but I'm very skeptical of such claims. Point defence systems are usually just that."

I think with a range of 45km+ (probably over 60km) CAMM-ER is a fair bit beyond a point defence missile, thats the lower to mid area defence level. With CAMM having a range of 25km+(again probably significantly above that, we know Asraam hits over 50km range) that will get you to the horizon at slant range, but won't get to an aircraft (like an MPA) at medium altitude, CAMM-ER even with a loadout of 25% of the silos would cause any enemy to significantly change their operations, and enable you to protect vessels around you more effectively.

"The is one very consistent & glaring fact about all missile systems since the beginning of time: they never work in service as well as the brochures/services claim.

Sorry to pick on the Brits but my favorite example is Rapier. Used to attract the same level of hype as Brimstone gets today. However when used in one of its primary roles in the Falklands, air defence of a beachhead, it was a total failure."

I think we can put Brimstone in the 'deserves the hype' category after all of the combat use it has had and its record to date . But Rapier was never designed as an area defence weapon, which is what it was asked to do in the Falklands. It was certainly never expected to defend a beachhead, and operating in a cluttered, marine environment against distant crossing targets was not in its spec. A lot of the issues encountered in the Falklands were due to storage and damage of the missiles due to salt water ingress on the trip down, the lack of test and repair equipment and what was there's ability to get to the dispersed launchers and reliance on petrol generators when most of the fuel carried was diesel. In terms of their siting, that was given special attention and the best places to position each launcher to cover San Carlos were modeled on a RAE computer on the way down, but even that couldn't overcome the fact it was being asked to do something for which it was never intended. One of its competitors, the Roland, was used by the Argentinians and had more success, but not against low level targets. It's siting to protect Stanley Airport was also immeasurably easier.

"A few years ago I had a chat with a former REME who used to work on Rapier. His story was that the hide bound generals didn't want a radar Rapier because that was way too hi tech and insisted on a human aimer. Took the Falklands to dispel that notion I guess."

Its a lovely story but they developed Blindfire 12 years before the Falklands and introduced it in 1979....

[ArmChairCivvy]

The original Blindfire was "so crap" that it was purchased for only half of the units, as in
"the optional, orignal "Blindfire Radar", which is a separate radar guidance unit to improve the missiles all weather capabilities, to help track and target the missile, helping the optics operator more accurately guide the missile to the target."

Only in (from) 1985 did we get Rapier Field Standard B2 (FSB2) aka, Rapier 90, aka Rapier Darkfire which included a new tracker that replaced the original optical system with a new IR thermal imager system to improve its abilities, especially at night.

The current version owns up to its naval origins (or rather the Falklands failings that the developments borrowed from the RN helped to rectify) in the name of the added, second radar with optics, the updated Blindfire radar and the new Dagger search radar.
"Rapier Field Standard C (FSC), aka Rapier 2000, aka Jernas Field Standard C (FSC - Export version)"
- bringing the Swingfire "innovations" back: " now the optics are not part of the work station, as they are not part of the launcher, so these and the operator can be situated at a distance"

As we can see from the 1st para, both of our commentators are right.
The whole story shows that the system to begin with was not great, but its longevity also shows that there was potential (that being in the name: fast, for close-in point defence).

I did ( along time ago) a post on TD about the specifics of what got borrowed from the navy; as the search function over there is hopeless, I won't even try. With that aspect omitted, here http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr ... r-sam.html is a good story of the chronology

[Timmymagic]

Was it ever an area defence weapon though?
Was it designed to protect a cluttered anchorage?
Was there a system out there that would actually work in that environment? Roland and Crotale were similar systems but wouldn't have been able to be sited. Did anything else actually exist that was better?
Put the USN in the same position would they have fared better (obviously ignoring the 3-4 CV's off the coast). When it came to air defence in that environment there's probably only 2 Navy's on earth who were equipped to handle the threat due to their love of guns being liberally sprinkled all over anything that floated, the Russians and the Italians.

[Ron5]

Sorry the quote option appears to be not working:

Ron
"You might be thinking that CAMM-ER would extend coverage to escorted ships. You may be correct but I'm very skeptical of such claims. Point defence systems are usually just that."

I think with a range of 45km+ (probably over 60km) CAMM-ER is a fair bit beyond a point defence missile, thats the lower to mid area defence level. With CAMM having a range of 25km+(again probably significantly above that, we know Asraam hits over 50km range) that will get you to the horizon at slant range, but won't get to an aircraft (like an MPA) at medium altitude, CAMM-ER even with a loadout of 25% of the silos would cause any enemy to significantly change their operations, and enable you to protect vessels around you more effectively.

"The is one very consistent & glaring fact about all missile systems since the beginning of time: they never work in service as well as the brochures/services claim.

Sorry to pick on the Brits but my favorite example is Rapier. Used to attract the same level of hype as Brimstone gets today. However when used in one of its primary roles in the Falklands, air defence of a beachhead, it was a total failure."

I think we can put Brimstone in the 'deserves the hype' category after all of the combat use it has had and its record to date . But Rapier was never designed as an area defence weapon, which is what it was asked to do in the Falklands. It was certainly never expected to defend a beachhead, and operating in a cluttered, marine environment against distant crossing targets was not in its spec. A lot of the issues encountered in the Falklands were due to storage and damage of the missiles due to salt water ingress on the trip down, the lack of test and repair equipment and what was there's ability to get to the dispersed launchers and reliance on petrol generators when most of the fuel carried was diesel. In terms of their siting, that was given special attention and the best places to position each launcher to cover San Carlos were modeled on a RAE computer on the way down, but even that couldn't overcome the fact it was being asked to do something for which it was never intended. One of its competitors, the Roland, was used by the Argentinians and had more success, but not against low level targets. It's siting to protect Stanley Airport was also immeasurably easier.

"A few years ago I had a chat with a former REME who used to work on Rapier. His story was that the hide bound generals didn't want a radar Rapier because that was way too hi tech and insisted on a human aimer. Took the Falklands to dispel that notion I guess."

Its a lovely story but they developed Blindfire 12 years before the Falklands and introduced it in 1979....

Most amusing. If Rapier was just half as good as your excuses.....

As for CAMM, in the real world it takes rather more than a bigger booster to increase a missiles effectiveness. Or maybe we should strap on an Atlas rocket and have it shoot down North Korean ICBMs?

[Ron5]

The original Blindfire was "so crap" that it was purchased for only half of the units, as in
"the optional, orignal "Blindfire Radar", which is a separate radar guidance unit to improve the missiles all weather capabilities, to help track and target the missile, helping the optics operator more accurately guide the missile to the target."

Only in (from) 1985 did we get Rapier Field Standard B2 (FSB2) aka, Rapier 90, aka Rapier Darkfire which included a new tracker that replaced the original optical system with a new IR thermal imager system to improve its abilities, especially at night.

The current version owns up to its naval origins (or rather the Falklands failings that the developments borrowed from the RN helped to rectify) in the name of the added, second radar with optics, the updated Blindfire radar and the new Dagger search radar.
"Rapier Field Standard C (FSC), aka Rapier 2000, aka Jernas Field Standard C (FSC - Export version)"
- bringing the Swingfire "innovations" back: " now the optics are not part of the work station, as they are not part of the launcher, so these and the operator can be situated at a distance"

As we can see from the 1st para, both of our commentators are right.
The whole story shows that the system to begin with was not great, but its longevity also shows that there was potential (that being in the name: fast, for close-in point defence).

I did ( along time ago) a post on TD about the specifics of what got borrowed from the navy; as the search function over there is hopeless, I won't even try. With that aspect omitted, here http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr ... r-sam.html is a good story of the chronology

What the heck does "point defence" mean to an army? You mean the system defends a point that is only worth defending if the system is there? Reminds me of the snake that eats itself.

As for longevity in British service demonstrating a systems effectiveness .....

[ArmChairCivvy]

When Tunguska entered the fray (they cost abt $10m apiece, we know, because Brazil was quite far down the road to buy some), their limited number (fielded) raised eye brows and a very good account was given what they would be allocated to defend, at different formation levels... you know, including the kind that would deserve a cruise missile or two fired at them
"What the heck does "point defence" mean to an army? You mean the system defends a point that is only worth defending if the system is there? Reminds me of the snake that eats itself."

RE "
As for longevity in British service demonstrating a systems effectiveness ....." I believe I was talking about development potential, and used the word "crap" for several of the early "baby steps"
- perhaps someone is in the position to go and ask the current users?

[dmereifield]

http://www.bqlive.co.uk/national/2018/0 ... bY.twitter

"Hundreds of jobs safeguarded as MBDA lands £400m MoD deal
The deal, which will see the defence giant supply the MoD with battle-winning Brimstone missiles, will create 130 new jobs and safeguard a further 270.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed a £400m deal to launch battle-winning Brimstone missiles from RAF Typhoon jets, defence secretary Gavin Williamson has announced today (27 Mar)."

[NickC]

Re. the £400 million contract awarded to MBDA (UK) for Brimstone 2 Capability Sustainment Programme, CSP/SPEAR 2, to replace all earlier variants in 2022 and with upgraded seeker, rocket motor, warhead and guidance system, range ~ 20KM/12 miles. Assume Brimstone CSP to replace ~ three thousand used in Iraq & Syria and sustain MBDA (UK) production capability.

Understand the future (2025?) SPEAR 3, twice the size and much longer range missile powered by a P&W turbojet, will replace Brimstone on Typhoon and F-35, Brimstone to be used on Apache.

[benny14]

Re. the £400 million contract awarded to MBDA (UK) for Brimstone 2 Capability Sustainment Programme, CSP/SPEAR 2, to replace all earlier variants in 2022 and with upgraded seeker, rocket motor, warhead and guidance system, range ~ 20KM/12 miles. Assume Brimstone CSP to replace ~ three thousand used in Iraq & Syria and sustain MBDA (UK) production capability.

Understand the future (2025?) SPEAR 3, twice the size and much longer range missile powered by a P&W turbojet, will replace Brimstone on Typhoon and F-35, Brimstone to be used on Apache.

Brimstone to be used on our future Protector drone as well.

[shark bait]

Spear does not replace Brimstone on the Typhoon, in fact there is no funding to integrate Spear on Typhoon beyond what is required for the test and evaluation phase.

Brimstone will never be on the F35, so Spear will be the default choice being the only air to ground missile in the UK's inventory that can be launched from a bomb bay.

I don't expect Spear will be integrated on Apache either, from what I can think attack helicopters always use rail mounted missiles. Sea Skua and Sea Venom being exceptions, I assume its different in the naval domain.

[Timmymagic]

Looks like another research and development effort under the Complex Weapons banner.

http://www.janes.com/article/79083/mbda ... w-research

[ArmChairCivvy]

Spear does not replace Brimstone on the Typhoon, in fact there is no funding to integrate Spear on Typhoon beyond what is required for the test and evaluation phase.

Brimstone will never be on the F35, so Spear will be the default choice being the only air to ground missile in the UK's inventory that can be launched from a bomb bay.

I don't expect Spear will be integrated on Apache either, from what I can think attack helicopters always use rail mounted missiles. Sea Skua and Sea Venom being exceptions, I assume its different in the naval domain.

All of that correct, but it is a pity that SPEAR1, 2, 3, 4 ... which ever of those came to exist
- became to mean (instead of the capability) the SPEAR3 that MBDA won (only just) and named their product Spear

Is Brimstone Spear2; Is the SS class capability Spear4... etc

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not sure (if this comes to a deal) where they will be manufactured... but we could piggy-bag on this solution?

"The Polish Armaments Inspectorate recently issued a requirement for a stand-off anti-armor capability, and is currently running two acquisition programs. The programs are known as ‘Pustelnik’ and ‘Karabela’, and are in support of the Polish Territorial Defence Forces (WOT) and the Polish Army. The Brimstone adaption would be part of the Karabela program, that stipulates an 8 km–10 km anti-armor weapon to equip multiple platforms. When outfitted with the palletised surface-launched salvo-fire adaptation, the Brimstone could serve as solution across all platforms."
says DID of today

[Timmymagic]

Compatible with Brimstone....the return of a Swingfire type overwatch capability?

Looks like an ASRAAM/CAMM with Brimstone seeker head

IIRC the main competitor to Brimstone originally was the BAe Typhoon which was an air to ground ASRAAM.....funny how things go around...

[Timmymagic]

MBDA's tweet....CAMM with Dual Mode Brimstone seeker and a CAMM with E/O sensor (Exactor replacement?)

But look at the middle missile picture....thats a ground launched Meteor!

I hope they're serious....some sort of Prompt Strike missile?

[Timmymagic]

And we really, really need to start thinking about GBAD, AA guns and Counter UAV capability seriously...

If we get these its likely the enemy may do as well...already flown with firing trials next year...the missile is the Enforcer which is being offered to ze Germans.

Can also carry MMP. Which means it could carry Javelin or LMM, but they're from other manufacturers.

Perhaps Fireshadow being cancelled wasn't a massive disaster after all...

Has to be said MBDA have an incredible portfolio at the moment.

[Timmymagic]

A bit more on Spectre. 2 Enforcer missiles or 1 MMP.

But also EW or resupply payloads. 10 km range from operator, 60 minute flight duration and c120 mph top speed. Very interesting.

These would have been very handy operating from patrol bases in Afghanistan...

https://www.janes.com/article/83133/mbd ... av-concept

[ArmChairCivvy]

A few years ago I had a chat with a former REME who used to work on Rapier. His story was that the hide bound generals didn't want a radar Rapier because that was way too hi tech and insisted on a human aimer. Took the Falklands to dispel that notion I guess.

Reminded me of Gen Haig, in Dec 2015:

"The machine gun will never replace the horse as an instrument of war"
... with 1st of July, 2016 only a half year away

[ArmChairCivvy]

Spectre: "combat range in excess of 10 km with a flight endurance of more than 60 minutes."

This could reverse the trend that (exc. for the US army) UAVs are used for target acquisition and attack helos for "prosecution".
- the latter being not only hugely expensive, but increasingly vulnerable at close-in ranges

Use the helos (hey! a use for our army Wildcats... in the end) for directing the Spectre-like (limited range & endurance) attacks. Suddenly you have at least twice as many helos available for the same price (our 50 new Apaches are coming cheaply - @ 2bn £s - compared to the 5 bn it took to get the initial fleet of 64 operational).

And tanks becoming sitting ducks, before they even come to within LOS of a dug-in infantry force? No wonder TRADOC, aka
"the US Army has yet to loose interest in developing guided tank ammunition. This means that the Army has either reactivated a formerly canceled development program like the XM943 STAFF or the XM1111 Mid Range Munition (MRM), or the US Army has started a new development program for long range/beyond-LOS guided tank ammunition."
- I seem to remember that (if the restart option is the one that applies) a range of 17 km was successfully tested (before cancellation)

[J. Tattersall]

After some scepticism a few years back I'm now of the opinion that MBDA represents a key national security asset, as well as important national leverage in the impending post-Brexit world.

As for the proposed Future Land Indirect Fires I notice that one of the offerings looks like an elongated Brimstone missile (possibly using a longer rocket motor for increased range). Firing from Boxer suggests that the weapons range would be long enough for it not to have to keep up front with Challenger/ Warrior/ Ajax. I just wonder how far this could be stretched though? Might any weapon (perhaps based on Spear3) have sufficient range to allow the existing Land Ceptor launcher/ truck to be used, thus avoiding the expense of integration onto Boxer etc.?

[shark bait]

MBDA have said previously that Spear could be launched from a CAMM canister, so your suggestion is possible.

I'll ask, whats the difference to GMRLS?

[ArmChairCivvy]

"the difference to GMRLS[?]" is that the soon to come nxt-gen will double the range and halve the price
- and of the old ones, there will be 00'000s to be refurbed with new warheads and to be acquired at a knock-down price
... with "backwards compatibility" far better than the one claimed by Microsoft