All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[Humphrey Bogart]

Low flying UAVs have already met their match:  it's the helicopter and they fly in the helicopters predatory area.

Our Army currently suffers from a lack of appreciation of the three dimensional nature of the battlefield.  Successful Air Defence is all about dispersed layering and ensuring you've got interlocking arcs at different altitudes.

No VSHORAD, SHORAD, HIMAD or THAAD.  We also have no Attack Helicopters, EW Helicopters, AEWC Helicopters.

Helicopters are essentially very mobile Tunguskas.  The US actually ran an exercise in the 70a and 80s called JCATCH which looked at using helicopters in Air to Air Engagements, they even managed to shoot down jets.

 

[Loachman]

Helicopters are not good defensive weapons, as their time on station is limited. They are much more effective in offensive roles.

Small, low-altitude UAVs are hard to spot from the air, especially as one's attention is concentrated elsewhere.

Small, low-altitude UAVs are much more of a threat to helicopters, from inadvertent collision.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Low flying UAVs have already met their match:  it's the helicopter and they fly in the helicopters predatory area.

Our Army currently suffers from a lack of appreciation of the three dimensional nature of the battlefield.  Successful Air Defence is all about dispersed layering and ensuring you've got interlocking arcs at different altitudes.

No VSHORAD, SHORAD, HIMAD or THAAD.  We also have no Attack Helicopters, EW Helicopters, AEWC Helicopters.

Helicopters are essentially very mobile Tunguskas.  The US actually ran an exercise in the 70a and 80s called JCATCH which looked at using helicopters in Air to Air Engagements, they even managed to shoot down jets.

Successful Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS) include army, navy, and air force assets tied together via tactical data links for IFF and real time communication from the JFACC through to the shooter systems. This isn't an army problem per say, but I would argue rather a CAF problem since all three services tend to want to stay within their own sandboxes. The RCAS was pushing through a recommendation that the CAF prepare a Joint Air Defence pub and doctrine such as the Brits and Americans have in the 2012 timeframe, but I don't know if it got much traction. There was a joint airspace control pub that was produced, but we (Army Air Defence) largely disagreed with it since it was extremely air force centric and the authors didn't really seem to understand the TAGS-AAGS system, particularly the AAGS part (Theatre air ground system- Army Air Ground System).

That said, helicopters can certainly be used in an anti-air role, but that's not their primary role. In an IADS, the JFACC and staff will assign hostile air targets to shooter systems (army, navy, and air force) based on system type (UAS, strike, fast air, helo, etc), location, and available AD systems. This keeps the air battle from becoming a free for all and allows systems such as CAS airframes and aviation to remain outside of enemy AD areas (ground and air) and on their tasks as determined in the ATO by the JFLCC or JFC.

AD is very much a system of systems, so we cannot just acquire a 20mm, 35mm, MANPAD, or helicopter and say we have "air defence". The C2 and BMC4I (Battlefield Management, Communications, computers, command and control and intelligence) are the critical elements of the IADS and in my opinion more critical than an actual shooter. That's why its frustrating when TACP types and other army types question why we have ASCCs... in short, they provide the BMC4I function and integration into the IADS.

 

[MilEME09]

What about something like the Danish Otomatic project, take a rapid firing naval gun, put it on a self propelled chassis with a Fire Control Radar, point at target and engage. We do have a couple guns off some destroyers recently decommissions that could be used  >

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Helicopters are not good defensive weapons, as their time on station is limited. They are much more effective in offensive roles.

Small, low-altitude UAVs are hard to spot from the air, especially as one's attention is concentrated elsewhere.

Small, low-altitude UAVs are much more of a threat to helicopters, from inadvertent collision.

I'm not thinking of helicopters loitering around looking for UAVs, I'm thinking more of attack helicopters killing UAVs as an extension of their existing combat support role.  Ahelicopter like an Apache Longbow is a potent defensive weapon when employed in a Combat Support Role to other maneuver forces.  The newest AH-64E Guardian can even control its own UAVs. 

My point on UAVs is that the small ones ground forces are worried about operate in the same airspace as helicopters.  Attack Helicopters carry enough weapons that they can easily deal with a UAV, especially the small little ones AGFs use.  A burst from a 20mm cannon should do the trick or a stinger missile carried by either the helicopter itself or the UAVs it controls.

Attack Helicopters, VSHORAD, SHORAD, HIMAD, etc all need to be taken in to consideration when creating an Air Defence Plan. 

Successful Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS) include army, navy, and air force assets tied together via tactical data links for IFF and real time communication from the JFACC through to the shooter systems. This isn't an army problem per say, but I would argue rather a CAF problem since all three services tend to want to stay within their own sandboxes. The RCAS was pushing through a recommendation that the CAF prepare a Joint Air Defence pub and doctrine such as the Brits and Americans have in the 2012 timeframe, but I don't know if it got much traction. There was a joint airspace control pub that was produced, but we (Army Air Defence) largely disagreed with it since it was extremely air force centric and the authors didn't really seem to understand the TAGS-AAGS system, particularly the AAGS part (Theatre air ground system- Army Air Ground System).

That said, helicopters can certainly be used in an anti-air role, but that's not their primary role. In an IADS, the JFACC and staff will assign hostile air targets to shooter systems (army, navy, and air force) based on system type (UAS, strike, fast air, helo, etc), location, and available AD systems. This keeps the air battle from becoming a free for all and allows systems such as CAS airframes and aviation to remain outside of enemy AD areas (ground and air) and on their tasks as determined in the ATO by the JFLCC or JFC.

AD is very much a system of systems, so we cannot just acquire a 20mm, 35mm, MANPAD, or helicopter and say we have "air defence". The C2 and BMC4I (Battlefield Management, Communications, computers, command and control and intelligence) are the critical elements of the IADS and in my opinion more critical than an actual shooter. That's why its frustrating when TACP types and other army types question why we have ASCCs... in short, they provide the BMC4I function and integration into the IADS.

You said it better than I ever could, systems of systems  :goodpost:

 

[NavyShooter]

Isn't the F-35 the 'penultimate' system of systems integration?

I'd agree, an integrated solution makes much sense, and is where we should look to go.

However.

As a baby step, how about we buy a few hundred Stingers for the infantry battalions to have onhand for local defense, and they buy a few of the Avenger turrets and pick a vehicle to mount them on, then you have mobile as well as portable defence. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Isn't the F-35 the 'penultimate' system of systems integration?

I'd agree, an integrated solution makes much sense, and is where we should look to go.

However.

As a baby step, how about we buy a few hundred Stingers for the infantry battalions to have onhand for local defense, and they buy a few of the Avenger turrets and pick a vehicle to mount them on, then you have mobile as well as portable defence.

I agree that Stingers would be a good stop gap, but disagree that they have any place in an Inf battalion. The requirement to integrate into the IADS as well as to create the sensor to shooter link from the JFACC down is more than a secondary duty.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree that Stingers would be a good stop gap, but disagree that they have any place in an Inf battalion. The requirement to integrate into the IADS as well as to create the sensor to shooter link from the JFACC down is more than a secondary duty.

I sense your fear.....

.......of an 18 year old private, with trench foot and a 3 day sleep deficit, accidentally shooting down our own aircraft.

 

[Journeyman]

.... disagree that they have any place in an Inf battalion.

Ya.  Next the recce guys would want some company...someone with some sort of anti-armour capability... some explosives and other engineering-type stuff (with beards)... hell, maybe some integrated indirect fire weapons. 

Someone could get hurt!  That's just crazy talk! 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ya.  Next the recce guys would want some company...someone with some sort of anti-armour capability... some explosives and other engineering-type stuff (with beards)... hell, maybe some integrated indirect fire weapons. 

Someone could get hurt!  That's just crazy talk! 

That's not what I meant, but I think there was sarcasm in there.

I'm all for infantry getting back AT, Pioneers, and mortars. I just don't believe that AD weapons can be easily integrated into an Inf Bn unless they are willing to create a platoon-coy of AD pers as a full time duty with the integration capabilities from JFACC to shooter.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's not what I meant, but I think there was sarcasm in there.

I'm all for infantry getting back AT, Pioneers, and mortars. I just don't believe that AD weapons can be easily integrated into an Inf Bn unless they are willing to create a platoon-coy of AD pers as a full time duty with the integration capabilities from JFACC to shooter.

AT and Pioneers are about providing capabilities.  Mortars are about providing a weapons system.

The Old Army provided a "group" of mortars and a "group" of machine guns.  Those weapons provided capabilities with the machine guns being able to provide both DFS and AA fires.  Heavy caliber machine guns (starting with Nordenfeldts and Pom Poms in the Boer War) have always been part of the mix.  An ex-Cal High of my acquaintaince survived a 20mm round from an AA gun in Normandy.  In the Falklands, at Goose Green, one of the major tactical problems were the 35mm AA guns used in the DFS role.

AT can be provided with guns or missiles.  Just like AA.

So here's a thought:

Option A - Combat Support Company includes AT, AA, DFS, IFS, Engineering and Recce
Option B - Combat Support Company includes Guns, Missiles, Mortars, Pioneers and Scout/Snipers.

I propose that Option B appeals because of the benefits in training and maintenance with training being geared to using the weapons effectively against a variety of targets and all being integrated into a common defensive/offensive plan of operations.

The Mortars and Guns adjust their ammunition currently, depending on the target set.  The Missile Department is equally capable of adjusting the ordnance ejected from a common launcher, again, depending on the target set.

Infanteers with rifles used to contribute to the Anti-Air capability. 

Doesn't it all come down to a matter of Command, Control and Fire Discipline?

 

[Journeyman]

... but I think there was sarcasm in there.

    :nod:

 

[Infanteer]

That's not what I meant, but I think there was sarcasm in there.

I'm all for infantry getting back AT, Pioneers, and mortars. I just don't believe that AD weapons can be easily integrated into an Inf Bn unless they are willing to create a platoon-coy of AD pers as a full time duty with the integration capabilities from JFACC to shooter.

As someone who knows infantry type people, I think they'd agree with this statement.

 

[MilEME09]

Which would mean one or more Support weapons Platoons with say an AA section, AT section, indirect fire section, and direct fire section (medium/heavy MG's).

 

[Old Sweat]

After E Battery gave up its para role in 1993, the Airborne Air Defence Section was posted to the Canadian Airborne Regiment and stated with the regiment until the disbandment. That may or may not be viable option, but I would prefer to see air defence sections remain part of a battery and be grouped with supported arms units as required for exercises and operations.

 

[Lumber]

That said, helicopters can certainly be used in an anti-air role, but that's not their primary role. In an IADS, the JFACC and staff will assign hostile air targets to shooter systems (army, navy, and air force) based on system type (UAS, strike, fast air, helo, etc), location, and available AD systems. This keeps the air battle from becoming a free for all and allows systems such as CAS airframes and aviation to remain outside of enemy AD areas (ground and air) and on their tasks as determined in the ATO by the JFLCC or JFC.

That's not quite how AD in the Navy works. AAD for naval units is the prerogative of the Anti Air Warfare Commander (AAWC). He determines what are hostile air targets and he alone issues take orders. In addition, individual units are free to employ point-defence AA weapons as necessary. This, of course, is all within whatever constraints/guidelines are set out by the Composite Warfare Commander.

Now, in the littoral environment, that could be a different story. There will probably be very specific guidelines on how a warship CO is allowed to employ his AAD weapons to fire on air targets over land. However, if a warship was operating in the littoral environment, say in support of an amphibious landing, then I don't think the CO would be waiting for JFACC approval to shoot down hostile FBAs or missiles directly threatening his unit.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think that I'd want to be in the cab of that pickup while the gun is overhead like that and firing.

Sorry to the rest of you but I wanted to address this.

My sense of how you might use this would be something along the lines of:

Gunner drives Gun-Vehicle to Firing Point.
Gunner halts Gun-Vehicle 25 m from Firing Point
Gunner dismounts Gun-Vehicle, loads ammo as required and checks weapon status.
Gunner takes cover
Gunner reverses Gun-Vehicle into battery in a prepared, covered position using a wired remote control (wired to minimize EW vulnerabilities)
Gunner traverses Gun to rear of Gun-Vehicle remotely
Gunner covers her arcs remotely
Gunner engages targets until:
      ordered to ceasefire
      runs out of ammunition
      receives effective fire
Gunner remotely manoeuvers Gun-Vehicle to Gunner's position.
Gunner mounts Gun-Vehicle
Gunner drives Gun-Vehicle to FARP or next Firing Position and is reloaded by ammunition resupply team.
Repeat as necessary.

One gun. One vehicle. One person.  Two people with Two Gun-Vehicles make up a Team.  Vehicle size largest suitable for helo transport.  Gun size largest suitable for vehicle that can be transported by helicopter.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at this a bit sideways, I would suspect that the place for a C-RAM system would be at the unit to battlegroup level (since incoming RAM tends to spoil your day) while GBAD is battlegroup and above to cover the larger areas of airspace. There can be a level of overlap (C-RAM weapons would certainly be deadly to small UAV's and probably capable of forcing aircraft and helicopters to divert or at least complicate any attack runs and egress routes, while GBAD should be capable of zapping UAVs that show themselves over the airspace).

Given the potential overlap of roles, there could also be an overlap of equipment, with "shooters" carrying similar weapons systems (say 25mm cannon and some sort of SAM or MANPADS on a mount), but coupled to different sensors and data links. These could be as small as "Avengers" based on utility truck chassis or as large as "Blazers" built on LAV chassis (for commonality of logistics, movement and protection).

 

[NavyShooter]

Looking at this a bit sideways, I would suspect that the place for a C-RAM system would be at the unit to battlegroup level (since incoming RAM tends to spoil your day) while GBAD is battlegroup and above to cover the larger areas of airspace. There can be a level of overlap (C-RAM weapons would certainly be deadly to small UAV's and probably capable of forcing aircraft and helicopters to divert or at least complicate any attack runs and egress routes, while GBAD should be capable of zapping UAVs that show themselves over the airspace).

Given the potential overlap of roles, there could also be an overlap of equipment, with "shooters" carrying similar weapons systems (say 25mm cannon and some sort of SAM or MANPADS on a mount), but coupled to different sensors and data links. These could be as small as "Avengers" based on utility truck chassis or as large as "Blazers" built on LAV chassis (for commonality of logistics, movement and protection).

So, the problem there is that C-RAM is very limited in range.  (~2-3km at most I think) and very limited in magazine space (1583 rds)  so while it might cover a small bubble of battlespace, it's also not a system that I thing belongs anywhere outside of a FOB or a larger base.  It's not really designed as a field deployed system.

The *nice* thing about the C-RAM is that it's all one piece, a flat-bed with both a search and track RADAR integrated, and a built-in gun system.

-Stop-gap of Shoulder fired Stingers gets an initial capability at the tactical level.  Issue one to every LAV.

-Follow up with a short-medium range AA missile on a vehicle mount with a better sighting system, think Avenger, or Chaparral, keep this with the Battalion CP

So far, we're not into anything integrated, just stand-alone equipment and vehicles that can be attached to give a local capability for AA.

Either of those would be a big step in the right direction, but to bring in an integrated AA suite would be the ideal....something that sockets into the 'system of systems' and gives a medium-long range capability.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

All for SAM's of al types, but some guns as well, when the air threat is small drones, they can service that target and crunchies.