All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[daftandbarmy]

The US is working on an update of that called the IMSHORAD

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/28/us-armys-interim-short-range-air-defense-solution-crystallizes/

It includes a pod of Stingers, another of Longbow Hellfires, an M203 chaingun and a 7.62 mm machine gun.

I like it.

:cheers:

That would perfect for bachelor parties.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nice thing about that is we already make and use the chassis, so it's the weapon system your buying. Build a towed/truck mounted version for the Reserves, starting with the comms, gun and optics.

 

[Underway]

So what is it? Close in air defence or anti-tank/bunker busting missile carrier.  Doesn't really fit into our doctrine or experience does it?  Tanks are for the direct fires in the Canadian Army, not LAV's.  The lessons on that seem pretty clear (see Tanks in Afghanistan).  I suppose if you did the double Stinger pod but then you're waiting for an enemy aircraft to literally fly directly over you at very low altitude.

I would suspect that something like the CAMM system being used by the UK would be much better for AD.  Better ranges, active RF seeker, cold launch etc...  Stingers are just seem so short ranged...

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry for popping up again

But I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

Pg 37 of the GBAD presentation - GBAD Concept of Operations - M777s providing Counterbattery fire.

Also, a fixed Command Centre within the Brigade Area of Operations with manoeuvre elements working under an Airspace Coordination bubble.

I am guessing that the AD requirements would be different at Suffield, Pet and Gagetown, or for that matter Kananaskis Country.  Which do you plan for?  Knowing that whatever you choose the enemy will do the other thing.

And for the record - I thought we looked at this thing before - and were less than impressed.  MMEV?

GBAD Concept of Operations
GBAD primary mission is to defend Canadian Armed Forces of incoming Brigade level and lower air attacks
• Canada will likely deploy as part of a coalition
• Depending on scenario expectation is to operate over extended distances (Adaptive Dispersed Operations for Brigade coverage of 7500 sq kms)  Edit 49 km radius FTR
• Robust defences and well-practised reversionary modes
• Entire area is not required to be covered
• GBAD will be given priorities to defend
• Able to concentrate force at decisive point/time
• Defend themselves
• An autonomous capability against multiple simultaneous threats
• Networked Command and Control system able to operate (with), interoperable with allies
• Early warning of an Indirect Fire and/or Remotely Piloted Aerial System attack via localized audio/visual warning to troops
• An increased ability to synchronize and integrate joint effects
• Given roles: Air Surveillance and Weapon Locating
• Mobility versus Range Coverage
• Field Headquarters that are mobile, protected and expandable  (Phew - originally read that as expendable)
• A sustainment system that is robust, responsive, connected and protected
• Be resilient (able to operate after losses)
• A training system to improve individual and collective effectiveness 36

 

[tomahawk6]

Stryker variant.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/

How fast is that schedule?

September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems.
February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD.
April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies.
May: An Army panel evaluates companies’ White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker.
August 31: The Army’s target date to award contracts.
Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered.
2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed.
2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We want the allseeing, alldoing, wunderweapon and will spend millions and years testing and talking, with the end result of zip. Start small and work up.

 

[MilEME09]

The MMEV was a good idea, but in testing the LAV 3 flipped when the missile was fired at a 90 degree angle to the vehicle. If anyone has any of the older issues of Canadian Defense Review I believe it was one of the 2015 issues that covered the tests. Would it work on a LAV 6 which is heavier, longer, and wider? maybe but it would have to be tested. Another option would be to heavily mod the Chassis cut out the crew compartment and lower the turret into that area.

 

[a_majoor]

Two things to say about a LAV 6 based GBAD system:

1. Make it GBAD and stop adding other s**t to it. If the system illustrated has two pods, then one could be Stingers and the other a different sort of SAM. This will provide a means to deal with different or difficult targets, and also give enemy air commanders more problems to deal with, since they now are sending their assets against a system that has three modes of attack (Stinger, cannon and second missile system). I'll leave what the second missile should be to the experts.

2. A large, top heavy system might not be the best COA. The LAV also comes in a "pickup truck" version. While you might not get a full 360 traverse, the turret mounted low on the chassis makes the overall vehicle more stable and less prone to tipping or rollovers. The major disadvantage to this is the "pickup truck" is a new hull for the system, but so long as all the other automotive systems are rationalized to match the LAV 6 fleet, this should not be a huge issue. The illustration has the usual "lets have AA and Anti Armour missiles mounted" porn. See point 1

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Looks very nose heavy

 

[tomahawk6]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/global-force-symposium/2018/03/28/armys-short-range-air-defense-system-will-be-under-contract-by-august-prototyped-by-spring/

 

[edlabonte]

Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.

The army doesn't need an ADATS/GBAD/MMEV.  They already have an Anti take system, it's called the tank. It is not the job of the Army to fight the battle in the air, that's what the Air Force is for.

Counter-Proposal: Establish an ADATS/GBAD/MMEB capability for the RCAF. They are best served to protect an Airfield anyway.  Lots of the previous AD Regiments were attached to the Air Force so why not just make them an Air asset. Build up a Sqn at every Wing, or a Flt at the Sqns, with weapon systems and train the airmen to provide defensive capabilities in theater on the airfield.
      I'm sure commanders would appreciate the help of airment well trained in field-craft and small arms in their Readiness Training Flights and GSAR teams allowing for more technicians to return to the flight line.  Likewise with other training institutions (RCAF Academy, CFLRS) would benefit from these kinds of airmen and not ATIS Techs and Air Traffic Controllers who can clearly serve the CAF better in their primary roles.
   

 

[garb811]

Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.
...

It's not a radical opinion, but it is an uneducated one that vastly over estimates the ability of the air force, not just ours but every air force, to counter and destroy every airborne threat to ground forces. Kind of like the over confidence some people had that strategic bombing alone could win a war...

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's not a radical opinion, but it is an uneducated one that vastly over estimates the ability of the air force, not just ours but every air force, to counter and destroy every airborne threat to ground forces. Kind of like the over confidence some people had that strategic bombing alone could win a war...

Also, a bright airforce blue APC, towing a luxury 5th wheel, would stand out a few miles away.

Just sayin'

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.

The army doesn't need an ADATS/GBAD/MMEV.  They already have an Anti take system, it's called the tank. It is not the job of the Army to fight the battle in the air, that's what the Air Force is for.

Counter-Proposal: Establish an ADATS/GBAD/MMEB capability for the RCAF. They are best served to protect an Airfield anyway.  Lots of the previous AD Regiments were attached to the Air Force so why not just make them an Air asset. Build up a Sqn at every Wing, or a Flt at the Sqns, with weapon systems and train the airmen to provide defensive capabilities in theater on the airfield.
      I'm sure commanders would appreciate the help of airment well trained in field-craft and small arms in their Readiness Training Flights and GSAR teams allowing for more technicians to return to the flight line.  Likewise with other training institutions (RCAF Academy, CFLRS) would benefit from these kinds of airmen and not ATIS Techs and Air Traffic Controllers who can clearly serve the CAF better in their primary roles.
 

So...no.

Your appreciation of history is terrible. 128 and 129 AD Batteries at Baden and Lahr in Germany were units of the Royal Canadian Artillery (ie the Army). They were not attached to the Air Force (there was not RCAF in those days), rather they worked for Canadian Forces Europe, thru 4 AD Regt. In some Air Forces, airfield air defence and even medium and high level AD is owned by an Air Force, but there is no universal model. I can think of no examples where an Air Force owns the SHORAD capability that then protects an Army.

Air Defence is not soley owned by the Air Force. It is a joint battle. Otherwise- what would be your solution for the Navy? The Air Force owning the SAMs on the ships and staffing half the Ops Room with RCAF personnel?

 

[edlabonte]

So...no.

Your appreciation of history is terrible. 128 and 129 AD Batteries at Baden and Lahr in Germany were units of the Royal Canadian Artillery (ie the Army). They were not attached to the Air Force (there was not RCAF in those days), rather they worked for Canadian Forces Europe, thru 4 AD Regt. In some Air Forces, airfield air defence and even medium and high level AD is owned by an Air Force, but there is no universal model. I can think of no examples where an Air Force owns the SHORAD capability that then protects an Army.

Air Defence is not soley owned by the Air Force. It is a joint battle. Otherwise- what would be your solution for the Navy? The Air Force owning the SAMs on the ships and staffing half the Ops Room with RCAF personnel?

Thank you kindly TACCO, examples are always helpful.  AD Regts do technically fall under Army history and they don't teach very much of that to the Air Force.

Would it be fair to say that all three, Short, Medium and Long range AD assets would be beneficial for the CAF in the event of conflict with an Air Force and not just focusing on one type?

Also, the Navy already does their own AD. They are armed to defend themselves against Exocet (Or Exocet like) attacks.  I assume you have spent more time with the navy than you care to admit and have better insight into their AD capabilities.  I believe the Winnipeg set a record once for repelling the most simultaneous Exocet attacks by a frigate during an exercise.

 

[Good2Golf]

Stryker variant.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/

How fast is that schedule?

September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems.
February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD.
April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies.
May: An Army panel evaluates companies’ White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker.
August 31: The Army’s target date to award contracts.
Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered.
2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed.
2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded.

Just debuted at AUSA 2019. :nod:

Hmmm...that chassis sure looks familiar, eh?

 

[tomahawk6]

Drones are so cheap even terror groups have them. Some of the SHORAD solutions include a laser. I have seen these solutions mounted on Hummers so I could see these at battalion level. A brigade might have a battery and the division would have a battalion. No doubt that the USAF could put up an umbrella over the battle space but that leaves cruise missile's and drones to be dealt with by ground forces.

 

[a_majoor]

Everything is there to meet the time line, just please put a different second pod on there without the Hellfires....

(Mistral, Starstreak, RBS 70, Spyder or Stunner....)

Lasers, even solid state lasers are power hogs because the coupling of input energy to light emission is very poor. A capable GBAD laser design is currently being created by Lockheed on the chassis of a FMTV, but uses the turbine engine of a scout helicopter as the power source, producing about 300 kW of power which (due to the inefficient nature of generating laser light) becomes a 100 kW output beam:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/05/16/dynetics-lockheed-team-beats-out-raytheon-to-build-100-kilowatt-laser-weapon/

Filling the back of a LAV with a gas turbine engine and all the electronics, power management and heat management systems is doable. no doubt, but might not provide the optimal laser weapons platform. The US army demonstrated a 5 kW laser on a Stryker, so there is a bit of a gap.

 

[tomahawk6]

Then we have the USMC's drone killer that was used recently while at sea using microwave tech.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mod note:  Merged several AA threads into here - will also continue to consolidate more AA stuff here.

Bumped with the latest:

The audacious attack on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq refinery and the Khurais oil field last September sent shivers down the spines of some Canadian military planners.

The stunning damage caused by a swarm of drones and cruise missiles — launched either from Iraqi or Iranian territory — proved to be an almost perfect illustration of the kind of vulnerability the Canadian Army faces in the rapidly evolving modern battlefield.

It's been seven years since the army retired the last of its ground-based air defence systems. By all indications, it will be another eight years before the Department of National Defence acquires a replacement system.

The Liberal government's defence policy talks about buying new anti-aircraft equipment — and perhaps now anti-drone technology — but the project is still only in what defence officials call the "options analysis" phase.

The commander of Canada's army said restoring that anti-aircraft defence is one of his top priorities.

"Air defence is right at the top of the pile of stuff I want to get in," Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre told CBC News earlier this month.

"It is a capability shortfall right now. And as you see the emerging threats out there, it is one that concerns me."

'An emerging threat'

Eyre, who recently served as deputy commander of the United Nations Command in Korea, described the technology used to attack the Saudi facilities as "an emerging threat" that Canada's soldiers need to be prepared for, especially "the swarming tactics of unmanned aerial vehicles."

For more than 15 years, Canadian military planners — hip-deep in fighting a counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan — were unconcerned about updating Cold War-era equipment meant to shoot down low-flying aircraft. The Taliban had no air force.

The last of the Canadian army's air defence equipment — the Oerlikon Air Defence Anti-Tank System (ADATS) — was retired in 2012 after an aborted attempt to modernize the vehicles. At the time, the federal government under then-prime minister Stephen Harper was cutting $2.1 billion out of the defence budget ...