All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[MilEME09]

There were actually a number of reserve artillery units that served in the air defence role using the Javelin missile from roughly 1992 to 2006/7 or so. Each unit was a mix of both regular and reserve soldiers. 18 AD Regt RCA in Lethbridge (previously and afterwards 20 Ind Fd Bty RCA); 1 AD Regt RCA Pembroke ON (subsequently 42 Fd Regt (Lanark and Renfrew Scottish)) and 58 AD Bty, 6 Fd Regt RCA Levis, PQ.

Prior to their formation in roughly 1980 or so (I could be out a year or two) each RCHA Regt had a Blowpipe missile (which was a Brit piece of ****) AD Bty added to it. Those were closed out when the three mixed Reg/Res Regts/Bties were formed. We did keep a Reg F 4th AD Regt for quite a while until it became 4 GS Regt.

I was long gone from the guns by the time all this started to shut down so do not know what the reasons were. I presume the change over from the RCHA bties to 1AD, 18 AD and 58AD were an attempt to save RegF PYs while maintaining the AD capability. I'm going to contact a friend of mine who was in the AD business and find out why the thing shut down in 2006. My guess again is PYs and $.


money I am sure, ADATS got too costly to maintain, I wouldnt be surprised if the other kit did too
:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

I've had one response from my friend on the Javelin issue and he indicates that the missile reached the end of it's life cycle without any replacement being looked into which also leads me to the costs issue as the main culprit. I'm not even sure what "life cycle" means to a weapons based capability; it's not like the best before date on a carton of milk.

That kind of argument always infuriates me. You either have a need for a weapon system when you go to war or you don't. If you give up a system that you need without replacement or reserve contingency it's the equivalent of saying you won't go to war with what you have left or saying we'll go to war anyway and just live with the consequences or let someone else look after that issue. At least when the US downsized their SHORAD capability, they transferred much of the capability to the National Guard and put the rest of the excess Avenger systems in storage. Many of those are currently being reactivated while the US builds up a newer and better capability to replace it.

My concern with GBAD is that it's specifications are all singing and dancing. Hopefully it will look more towards a system of off-the-shelf systems that will each do a part well rather than one massively expensive system that does everything.

To get back to the reserve issue. Systems like this, which for the most part are not needed every day, should be in the reserve inventory so that the O&M costs and wear and tear on the equipment are kept reasonably low. It strikes me that whenever another headquarters expands and robs PYs from the RegF field units the first things to go are the more esoteric systems that are only needed in time of major conflict (tanks, self propelled artillery, mortars, pioneers, air defence - the list goes on and on - you know, the stuff that keeps you alive on the battlefield)

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

To get back to the reserve issue. Systems like this, which for the most part are not needed every day, should be in the reserve inventory so that the O&M costs and wear and tear on the equipment are kept reasonably low. It strikes me that whenever another headquarters expands and robs PYs from the RegF field units the first things to go are the more esoteric systems that are only needed in time of major conflict (tanks, self propelled artillery, mortars, pioneers, air defence - the list goes on and on - you know, the stuff that keeps you alive on the battlefield)

:cheers:

But seriously what responsible army, since about 1939 when the Luftwaffe rolled up the Allies in Europe, has never deployed on a 'conventional' war fighting operation, or exercise, without some sort of GBAD system integral to its capability (and not just shuffled off to the Reserves)?

I assume that it should be as much of an SOP as carrying a respirator....

 

[FJAG]

But seriously what responsible army, since about 1939 when the Luftwaffe rolled up the Allies in Europe, has never deployed on a 'conventional' war fighting operation, or exercise, without some sort of GBAD system integral to its capability (and not just shuffled off to the Reserves)?

I assume that it should be as much of an SOP as carrying a respirator....

It should be although when I served with the Reg F from 69 to 81, we considered ourselves a "responsible army" (we had tanks and APCs and SPs and everything) but had zero AD capability until the last year or two of my service (and that was only to provide AD protection to our airfields in Europe for which NATO paid us and for which we resuscitated 40mm hard iron sights Boffins from the scrapped Bonaventure and the that POS, Blowpipe.

I don't think that it is "shuffling off" of a capability to the reserves when you take a capability that is only needed in a major combat role (like tube and rocket artillery, air defence or even large scale service support) and give it to units that have a large (but properly organized and trained) reserve component. It maintains the capability at a lesser day-to-day O&M cost that we might otherwise not find the money for using just the RegF. The key here is that the reserve force needs to be structured in a way other than the "come-when-you-feel-like-it" model that we have now. Quite frankly, considering the budget pressures we are under, I can't see Canada regaining a proper combat capability without extensive use of reserve forces. The RegF we want is financially unsustainable and it's time we recognized that.

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

The thing is, I believe, the Canadian Army in Germany, would have been operating under an allied air-defence umbrella.  The Canadian Brigade's contribution would likely create as much confusion as anything else.  Its patch of sky would have been masked by neighbouring divisions, corps and armies.

The only reason a brigade would need its own air defence capability is if it, like an RCN warship, were operating in glorious isolation from its neighbours.  And we are assured by our politicians that that is never going to happen.

 

[FJAG]

The thing is, I believe, the Canadian Army in Germany, would have been operating under an allied air-defence umbrella.  The Canadian Brigade's contribution would likely create as much confusion as anything else.  Its patch of sky would have been masked by neighbouring divisions, corps and armies.

The only reason a brigade would need its own air defence capability is if it, like an RCN warship, were operating in glorious isolation from its neighbours.  And we are assured by our politicians that that is never going to happen.

Once Canada stood up it's air defence contingents, they became part of the NATO's Integrated Air Defence system (now the Integrated Air and Missile Defence System). NATO AD resources have worked on an integrated basis for some time, however, to call it an umbrella is not quite correct. It's more like layers of systems that interlock and overarch. Low level (or short range) air defence is one of those layers and requires resources collocated within the brigade's areas of operations and sustainment. For us those were Blowpipe and later Javelin batteries which only reach out to a few thousand meters while ADATS reached out to only 10km. (the US Avenger system [based on Stinger missiles] has a slightly shorter range)

4 GS Regt RCA maintains a capability to deploy both Air Space Coordination Centres and Surveillance and Target Acquisition Control Centres for a deployed brigade (or even a division) which will integrate with NATO resources. That said, a Canadian brigade's assigned short range air defence resources (whether Canadian or allied) would not be "masked" by neighboring formations but rather be integrated, as a layer, into the whole.

As drones become an ever increasing danger, LLAD/SHORAD located within the bde's most forward areas (and highly coordinated with the brigade's manoeuvre elements) becomes even more vital.

I've discussed the issue of reserves using the Javelin with my old AD friend and was told that the 15 years of having ResF AD units was actually quite successful. After we ran out of funding Javelin replacements, there was quick consideration for devolving ADATS to the reserves but this was considered impractical because of the high cost of maintaining the ADATS systems which the army (mired in Afghanistan at the time) wasn't prepared to fund. While air space coordination and the control systems for air defence are complex, operation at the weapons detachment level (especially for a fire and forget system like Avenger/Stinger) is quite within a reservist's minimal training skill set. A perfect system for an integrated Reg/Res unit. A wheeled, fire and forget system like Avenger is also relatively light on maintenance needs compared to what was needed for a tracked system like ADATS.

:cheers:

 

[GK .Dundas]

The thing is, I believe, the Canadian Army in Germany, would have been operating under an allied air-defence umbrella.  The Canadian Brigade's contribution would likely create as much confusion as anything else.  Its patch of sky would have been masked by neighbouring divisions, corps and armies.

The only reason a brigade would need its own air defence capability is if it, like an RCN warship, were operating in glorious isolation from its neighbours.  And we are assured by our politicians that that is never going to happen.
[/quote  Speaking of glorious isolation,I note that the Army's political masters will most likely be nowhere near that brigade if they just happen to be wrong in their wisdom.

 

[tomahawk6]

At least at the light infantry level should be MANPADs. Mech infantry battalions should have something like ADATS.

 

[tomahawk6]

Next year the UK is replacing RAPIER with SKY SABER which would be able to deal with threats on todays battlefield.

hhttps://www.army-technology.com/features/sky-sabre-inside-uks-missile-defence-system/

 

[Kirkhill]

So for GBAD,

Are we looking at an Area system or a Point Defence system?
And if a Point Defence system are we looking at a centralized training system that collocates all assets with 4 GSR for tasking out as required?
Or is the technology available to support a distributed training system with centralized control of assets with the assets tasked out as required?

Also, even if the defence system is a point defence system does the system require an area threat warning system to alert the point defence forces?
And if so, does it make sense to take out some of those incoming targets as the approach the local points?

And how much money is in the bank?

 

[FJAG]

So for GBAD,

Are we looking at an Area system or a Point Defence system?
And if a Point Defence system are we looking at a centralized training system that collocates all assets with 4 GSR for tasking out as required?
Or is the technology available to support a distributed training system with centralized control of assets with the assets tasked out as required?

Also, even if the defence system is a point defence system does the system require an area threat warning system to alert the point defence forces?
And if so, does it make sense to take out some of those incoming targets as the approach the local points?

And how much money is in the bank?

Not sure one can answer those questions without being part of the project team. The project overview on the government web page is notoriously broad and general:

Objective
The GBAD system will provide tactical air defence protection to friendly forces and vital installations during expeditionary and domestic operations against the increasingly diverse air threat.

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=940

There's a bit more here starting at page 9:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2018/08/23/ebcfdb62c2e7090e77b81872d0b088e5/ABES.PROD.PW__BK.B383.E26950.EBSU000.PDF

and here:

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2018/10/02/bbc9fbfce389c8b4369e0ecd1aa58c8f/ABES.PROD.PW__BK.B383.E26950.EBSU002.PDF

This slightly dated paper at the CF College gives a fairly good understanding of the issues in a nutshell albeit the CDS risk authorization re JIMP ops at para 24 seem a tad over-the-top:

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/192/deneau.pdf

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I said stand up some Reserve AD troops, buy/lease ManPad simulators, which I believe we have some already for training the Air Force.  Invest in a 25mm gun system using as many components of the LAV gun system as possible and the RWS systems we use currently for targeting. I suspect we could lease a couple of systems like the modernized Skyguard or the Mistral missile system for a Reg Force Troop. Then you can start rebuilding the knowledge base and skill sets and incorporate the concepts into the army training and experience real ground friction as part of the learning curve as opposed to mythical units providing mythical protection.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the links FJAG.

Some nice threads to pull on.

 

[Spencer100]

Not really know what I'm talking about could we not just put a couple of Mk 41 to VLS tubes on a truck.  A radar on different truck and gen set and computer to tie it together? 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

After a scan thru the project documents, and looking at the very small amount of money allocated ($500 million), I would suggest we are looking to buy a very simple,  point defence VSHORAD system. Probably about Battery's worth. For reference, that would be something like RBS70, stinger or skyguard.

You don't get Area Air Defence for $500 million.

 

[a_majoor]

If the intent is to defend installations like airfields, FOBs and bases, maybe something evolved from the Israeli "Iron Dome" system will fill the bill. This is more of a C-RAM system, but it likely could be adapted to deal with drones. Helicopters and attacking aircraft would likely need something different, but that could be "Phase II", and a mobile system for protection of tactical assets in the field.

Iron Dome could be the Reserve system, since it only needs a few trucks to move it around and then set up, while mobile systems become Regular Force assets due to O&M costs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If the intent is to defend installations like airfields, FOBs and bases, maybe something evolved from the Israeli "Iron Dome" system will fill the bill. This is more of a C-RAM system, but it likely could be adapted to deal with drones. Helicopters and attacking aircraft would likely need something different, but that could be "Phase II", and a mobile system for protection of tactical assets in the field.

Iron Dome could be the Reserve system, since it only needs a few trucks to move it around and then set up, while mobile systems become Regular Force assets due to O&M costs.

Based on the principle of 'walk before we run' or 'every little bit counts', is there a suite of air defence sight/ mounting options that can be added to the .50 cal/ C6 these days?

At the very least, we should be able to mount these on vehicles, or a ground mount of some kind.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rheinmetall Oerlikon Quebec.

Skyshield - Specifically a C-RAM system capable against RPAS and in range Helos.

Interesting that the docs provided by FJAG depicted a mobile, armoured, tracked missile launcher as aspirational exemplars for the concept of operations.

As to the dollars,  perhaps some of the dollars could be ssssstrrrreeeetched by virtue of noting that the Elbit Area Radar has already been purchased from Rheinmetall under a separate project and that AIM 9s,  AIM 120s and ESSMs, all compatible with ground launch Air Defence, are already in inventory.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/raytheon-aim-9x-sidewinder-nasams/

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/national-advanced-surface-to-air-missile-system-nasams/

AMRAAM groundlaunch Norsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhz4ZQMHeDw

ESSM groundlaunch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmHh37312zQ

Edited to add image of in-service MMR

https://www.army-technology.com/news/canadian-army-acquires-medium-range-radar-rheinmetall/

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on the principle of 'walk before we run' or 'every little bit counts', is there a suite of air defence sight/ mounting options that can be added to the .50 cal/ C6 these days?

At the very least, we should be able to mount these on vehicles, or a ground mount of some kind.

How about something like these?

Common to C9/C6/HMG/AGL and CG-84. 

http://soldiersystems.net/2019/03/12/us-military-buys-aimpoint-fcs-13-re-fire-control-system/

 

[Kirkhill]

One other point from FJAG's submissions that I had not known before:

Distributed Ops Area for a Brigade - 7500 km2

That translates to a circle with a radius of 49 km.

The detection range of the Air Surveillance mode is up to 250 Km, with capacity for up to 1,200 targets. MMR offers long-range detection with high angular accuracies and resolutions. Moreover, adding an extra power generator can increase the detection range.May 29, 2013
Multi Mission Radar – the ideal solution for the Canadian ...

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com › publicrelations › pressemitteilungen

Max effective range Millenium 35mm - 5 km
Max effective range (ground launch) AIM-9X - 5 km ??
Max effective range (ground launch) AIM-120 - 25 km
Max effective range (ground launch) ESSM - 50 km

Rheinmetall apparently also produces a MANPADs system (AMADS)

https://rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/systemsandproducts/airdefence/air-defence.php#AMADS

M777 ranges for counter-battery capability

M107 24 km
ERFB 30 km
Excalibur 40 km

Is the M777 Vulcano compatible? (Edit: Answer - BAE says yes)  - Range out to 60 km with 100 km possible with a 52Cal ERCA M777
https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3150941/OTO_Vulcano_155_LQ_mm08723_.pdf?t=1538987711480
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/vulcano-precision-guided-munitions