All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[Cloud Cover]

Been there; done that; got the T-shirt:

Halford v Seed Hawk and Simplot Canada Ltd. Fed Ct of Appeal

I was counsel for Simplot Canada. Long case - eleven years. Really long trial - spread over four years.  :facepalm:

:cheers:

This line from 2 centuries back is still one of my favourites in patent litigation: "It is seldom that the infringer does the thing, the whole thing, and nothing but the thing claimed in the Specification."

 

[FJAG]

This line from 2 centuries back is still one of my favourites in patent litigation: "It is seldom that the infringer does the thing, the whole thing, and nothing but the thing claimed in the Specification."

Unless you are a Chinese manufacturer. But we digress  :highjack:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is timely and points to the need of a multi-layered AD system

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-air-power/2020/08/06/libya-is-turning-into-a-battle-lab-for-air-warfare/?fbclid=IwAR1Tao20i2ZnsOUW0tlCygv2auqrf0w2BxwnCJzJTvlrry5AFhdcFEhTtTk

 

[Kirkhill]

What would history have looked like if these two beasts were sold for the RCA instead of the RCAC?

I figure the MGS would make an excellent FOO/FAC vehicle.  Operate close to the front.  Deal with pop up targets on its own.  Mark with tracer or smoke.  Call in heavier support.  And fire flechettes at UAVs.  Might have to add a radar.

 

[FJAG]

The MMEV was cancelled in 2006 because ... well the Taliban had no airplanes and who'd ever think we'd be facing Russians again.

Re the MGS - we've got a pretty decent LAV FOO/FAC vehicle from what I've been told. And it blends in better with the rest of the LAVs in the company.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

The MMEV was cancelled in 2006 because ... well the Taliban had no airplanes and who'd ever think we'd be facing Russians again.

:cheers:

Bit more to it then that, in testing the MMEV flipped the LAV after firing a missile at a perpendicular angle to the hull. Full test notes were published in a article by Canadian Defense Review in 2012.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bit more to it then that, in testing the MMEV flipped the LAV after firing a missile at a perpendicular angle to the hull. Full test notes were published in a article by Canadian Defense Review in 2012.

That could be solved with hydraulic arms that extend down like a backhoe. That system and hull modification could carry over to a SPG version of the LAV 6 as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bit more to it then that, in testing the MMEV flipped the LAV after firing a missile at a perpendicular angle to the hull. Full test notes were published in a article by Canadian Defense Review in 2012.

Spades, like Colin suggests, Or..... don't fire missiles perpendicular to the hull.  Isn't that a matter of siting and setting of arcs?  These things aren't expected to try snap-shooting on the move are they?

 

[Kirkhill]

FJAG, what would you think of a Coy Spt Tp consisting of one of our current FOO/FAC LAVS, an MMEV variant loaded with something like 70mms and Hellfires,  and a pair of MGS.  I am still convinced that the MGS is a direct fire artillery weapon, no different in role than the old 13/18 pdrs.  The MGS could also act as an extra pair of spotters instead of, or in addition to, MFCs.

MMEVs could also be brigaded in AD Tps if loaded with appropriate missiles.

 

[MilEME09]

FJAG, what would you think of a Coy Spt Tp consisting of one of our current FOO/FAC LAVS, an MMEV variant loaded with something like 70mms and Hellfires,  and a pair of MGS.  I am still convinced that the MGS is a direct fire artillery weapon, no different in role than the old 13/18 pdrs.  The MGS could also act as an extra pair of spotters instead of, or in addition to, MFCs.

MMEVs could also be brigaded in AD Tps if loaded with appropriate missiles.

MMEV also had a CRV-7 Pod, which as a precision guided version  where a spotter can laser a target and use the rockets in an indirect mode. Thus making it a very multi role vehicle.

 

[dapaterson]

MMEV is proof that concepts should begin in AutoCAD, not Photoshop.

 

[Kirkhill]

MMEV is proof that concepts should begin in AutoCAD, not Photoshop.

Disagree.  Concepts can begin anywhere.  The first design iteration should take a run through AutoCad.  With a little bit of arithmetic as well.

 

[FJAG]

FJAG, what would you think of a Coy Spt Tp consisting of one of our current FOO/FAC LAVS, an MMEV variant loaded with something like 70mms and Hellfires,  and a pair of MGS.  I am still convinced that the MGS is a direct fire artillery weapon, no different in role than the old 13/18 pdrs.  The MGS could also act as an extra pair of spotters instead of, or in addition to, MFCs.

MMEVs could also be brigaded in AD Tps if loaded with appropriate missiles.

Not a fan.

I'm a child of the 1970s and 80s when we had a cold war enemy and systems (kind of) to deal with that. That's a benefit in that my mind hasn't been corrupted by all the post cold war doctrine issues but also a handicap in that I don't have personal experience with a lot of the more recent kit.

Case in point is ADATs. I could just never cotton on to the idea that air defence and anti-armour could be done by the same equipment/organization. They are very different skill sets needing specialized equipment and tactics which were not easy to switch between (and which might be needed concurrently) This also makes me a bit nervous when it is stated that the Hellfires on IM-SHORAD also gives them an anti-armour capability. I'd rather they keep their attention on the air threat (including itty-bitty UAVs) and let some specialized anti-armour force take care of the incoming tanks.

IMHO, infantry battalions need their own small arms, anti-armour and indirect fire mortars but that everything else comes from specialized brigade resources which are somewhat removed from having to deal with the close in fight and are able to think and act across a broader spectrum of the brigade front (or even further if Div resources). Each of UAV surveillance, long range anti-armour, air defence, depth artillery/arty observation/FACing are skills in their own right needing specialized expertise, tactics and coordination/communication systems. As a simple example the requirements for siting of AD assets is completely different from the requirements for siting anti-armour assets. Those differences are amplified further during the different phases of war.

To me the MGS is not a good fit anywhere because it was designed as a close in support weapon for the battalion (in fact in its initial ORBAT three of them were organic to a Stryker rifle company) and was considered lacking even in as permissive an environment as Afghanistan. Now they are organic to the Stryker cavalry squadron where they play somewhat the same role as the tank company plays in a ABCT cavalry squadron, (direct fire support for the scouts in a pinch) Note the MGS's ammo available is restrictive as direct fire artillery and each vehicle only carries 18 rounds on board:

The MGS's 105 mm cannon can fire four types of ammunition: the M900 kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; the M456A2 high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; the M393A3 high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and M1040 canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open.

I'm a fan of real tanks whenever possible. For much the same reason as SP guns although to a different degree: firepower, mobility, crew protection.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

What if we just utilize IM-SHORAD Differently, okay it can do AD and AT, that's fine but XX Air defense Regiment will only use AA missiles while vehicles given to the dragoons will only be AT. We shouldn't exclude a vehicle because it can be multi role. Just gotta use it how we want.

 

[FSTO]

It's a dynamic industry. At the time that Vale and Seed Hawk were start-ups everyone else in North America was using big discers and stuff from the more established companies that needed a lot of horsepower to pull. The air seeders really made a difference but still had a hard time penetrating the market. While Seed Hawk was bought out, Norbert, the guy behind the Seed Hawk opener formed a new company in 2002 called SeedMaster which is still independent and where he is still inventing new high technology solutions. I particularly like this foray into the field of autonomous farm machinery. https://industrywestmagazine.com/cover-story/autonomous-farming-reaches-infinite-horizons-seedmaster-manufacturing-inc/

I remember in court describing the opener as an "elegant" device. They're still doing it that way.

:cheers:

Derailing the thread a bit. My brother farms south of about 50 miles Shilo (as a kid I remember hearing the guns of the Germans refighting the Battle of Kursk every summer, "Zdamit, ve vil git tem damn Ruskis for sure sis time!") and when that seed/fertilizer banding device came on the market, it was a game changer. Overnight all those John Deere/Case IH hoe drills became scrap metal.

 

[FJAG]

What if we just utilize IM-SHORAD Differently, okay it can do AD and AT, that's fine but XX Air defense Regiment will only use AA missiles while vehicles given to the dragoons will only be AT. We should exclude a vehicle because it can be multi role. Just gotta use it how we want.

But there's already a perfectly usable (and probably cheaper) TOW under armour version of the LAV

And a Stryker M1134

I think we converted 33 of the 71 we ordered into infantry section carriers around 2007. I'm not sure if we actually hold any in inventory still. I think not.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

the turrets were all put in storage, why we don't put them on LAV 6 chassis's is beyond me.

 

[MJP]

Ignore for some reason I read ADATS not Tow.  ITAS is something we could do.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Isn't it just a TUA in which case the missile guidance system could do with an update along with the optics, but the metal and mechanical bits would be pretty straight forward?

 

[FJAG]

Isn't it just a TUA in which case the missile guidance system could do with an update along with the optics, but the metal and mechanical bits would be pretty straight forward?

I'm not a hundred percent sure of this but in reading an article in the 2007 Strathconian, at pg 45 about LDSH's E Company and the basic TOW course which makes it clear that they are operating the TOW ITAS (Improved Target Acquisition System). TOW ITAS (which came out in 1999) is, to the best of my knowledge, still the standard improved version of the launcher/guidance system.

:cheers: