All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[Bird_Gunner45]

Wait....someone else is arming their infantry with MANPADS....?  Who said that before?

As a short term solution. The article also doesn't cover their efforts to integrate the shooters into an IADS.

 

[NavyShooter]

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

See above....from page 2...."stop-gap of shoulder fired Stinger..."

 

[Fabius]

So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?

 

[Lumber]

So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?

Short term solution? Deploy with a larger force that does have IADS.

Long term solution? Deploy with a larger force that does have IADS.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?

Well, first, the stringer offers limited capability against the threats we are expecting to face. The recognized threats are Munitions (Cruise missiles, RAM, etc), UAS, and aviation. The stinger is really only useful against one of those, being aviation, with little to no ability to engage a UAS due to the targeting system and zero capability in a C-RAM role. Further, the stinger is "fire and forget" which will not be considered unless its an absolute 100% stop gap temporary solution. If we are procuring MANPADs there are better options than the stringer, with the RBS-70 Bolide being a primary one. Better TA system, laser guided, integrated BMC4I suite for the det commander, etc etc etc

Also, I disagree with procuring an AD system for the infantry. They're not a secondary duty, so unless the Bn's have enough extra bodies in them to man up AD platoons than the capabilities are better centralized in 4 AD for a variety of reasons (force generation, currency training, Aircraft recognition, collective training, etc). They tried to give the Bn's MUAS and look how that worked out

 

[Fabius]

I will admit that I am particularly interested in this from a BG perspective. I accept that a Stinger may not be the best MANPAD available, and I would definitely like the RBS-70 Bolide BUT if I can have Stingers NOW via UOR delivered from the USA with training delivered via the US Army (ala Chinook 2009) while waiting on the procurement system to pick the perfect system 5 years from now I am good with that. 

With regards to recognized threats, do you mean that that is what the CAF wants to be able to counter? Are we wanting a system that does all three things at once? I can't see how that will work in the immediate term as the three threats as you have laid them out are not threats that can be countered by the same system as you have already indicated.

Specifically CUAS is being conducted by assets and systems that are almost wholly unrelated to AD in so far as Canada understands that term (as far as I know) and will likely never be fielded by 4 GS and more likely by 21 EW if we were to decide to go down that route. C-RAM while useful, I would suggest would be unlikely to ever be fielded by Canada at the BG level. Given the number of systems we would likely ever be able to FG, their mobility, and effective ranges, those assets would likely be focused on Bde level assets.

All of that to say, it seems that the recognized threat of most relevance to a manoeuvre BG right NOW is aviation and that is what our largest ally is focused on with this reinvigoration of MANPADS. 
Is that not the same realization the Canadian Army has come to?

 

[Loachman]

Also, I disagree with procuring an AD system for the infantry. They're not a secondary duty, so unless the Bn's have enough extra bodies in them to man up AD platoons than the capabilities are better centralized in 4 AD for a variety of reasons (force generation, currency training, Aircraft recognition, collective training, etc).

Guaranteed: They'll shoot first and identify later, then wonder why they're not getting any helicopter rides anymore.

And our Southern Cousins tend to pay less attention to AFV and aircraft recognition than we do.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Off the shelf?

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/air_defence_systems/mobile_air_defence/index.php

I think I read that original Skranger turret has already been fit onto Piranha III and IV so that should simplify integration into LAV 6 chassis.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Guaranteed: They'll shoot first and identify later, then wonder why they're not getting any helicopter rides anymore.

And our Southern Cousins tend to pay less attention to AFV and aircraft recognition than we do.

You are 100% correct. I recall running my troops around Farnborough airfield during the airshow AFTER some pretty intense aircraft recognition training (using a big wheel of slides!) and, as a group, they probably got 1 out of 5 correct-ish.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Dumb question but are all NATO aircraft (including helicopters) not equipped with IFF? 

Would the more advanced GBAD systems not be able to make that proper identification?

 

[Fabius]

Would not battlefield airspace control measures like Standard Army Aviation Flight routes (SAAFRs) and Low Level Transit Corridors (LLTC) paired with weapon control states also work to provide de-confliction? 
Seems like a better approach than relying on 100% accurate aircraft recognition by troops of any MOC after days and weeks of combat under intense time pressure against fleeting things half seen in the airspace.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Would not battlefield airspace control measures like Standard Army Aviation Flight routes (SAAFRs) and Low Level Transit Corridors (LLTC) paired with weapon control states also work to provide de-confliction? 
Seems like a better approach than relying on 100% accurate aircraft recognition by troops of any MOC after days and weeks of combat under intense time pressure against fleeting things half seen in the airspace.

You have put your finger exactly on the problem. The troops holding the Stinger have to know that they are under or in a region where such things exist. They have to understand the shoot/no shoot implications. This implies that they be properly trained in such matters and that they exist in an IADS. Hence why, IMHO, issuing ifanteers Stingers on a "one per LAV" , just in case basis is probably a bad idea.

 

[MilEME09]

You have put your finger exactly on the problem. The troops holding the Stinger have to know that they are under or in a region where such things exist. They have to understand the shoot/no shoot implications. This implies that they be properly trained in such matters and that they exist in an IADS. Hence why, IMHO, issuing ifanteers Stingers on a "one per LAV" , just in case basis is probably a bad idea.

In that case would having a dedicated AA section within a weapons det requiring a specialized course to teach all these things make more sense?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yes, but I suspect having a dedicated ADA Troop in the artillery is the better way to go with our small military, That troop can provide cover for units exercising and on real deployments. As mentioned in this thread, we seem to have the radar and networking assets, now we need some form of actual firepower. I still support a light gun and Manpad arrangement for now, then add larger assets later. Not to mention Simulators, including a traveling simulator that a small team of reg force guys could take across the country to teach a introduction course to Reserve units. 

 

[Kirkhill]

yes, but I suspect having a dedicated ADA Troop in the artillery is the better way to go with our small military, That troop can provide cover for units exercising and on real deployments. As mentioned in this thread, we seem to have the radar and networking assets, now we need some form of actual firepower. I still support a light gun and Manpad arrangement for now, then add larger assets later. Not to mention Simulators, including a traveling simulator that a small team of reg force guys could take across the country to teach a introduction course to Reserve units.

yes, but we used to have specialists in the infantry (which going back into the mists of time included dedicated anti-air and anti-tank practitioners as well as machine gun and mortar folks - and pioneers just so they don't feel left out). The role of the specialist NCOs in those outfits was as much planning the coordination of the fires as it was commanding the troops assigned.  The CO always had Sgt/WO Suchandsuch with 20 years in, the right courses under his belt, and whom the CO had personally put in that position because he trusted him, in his hip pocket to advise him and help create the plan. And a subby to relay messages.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Chris your speaking to the converted, right now I would say get the infantry focused on rebuilding the heavy weapons and AT platoons, for mortars, MG and ATGM's. Let the artillery provide the AD for now, other than providing the infantry with a mount and optic to use their HMG at high angle to tackle small UAV/drones overhead.

 

[GnyHwy]

Just wondering, after the Infantry takes on all these roles, how many rifles will they have left? Serious question. Wasn't that part of the reason we are at where we are today?

I do agree that Inf should have AD, and I also agree they need AT, Pioneer and IDF, but none of these are secondary tasks all require extensive training.

If there is an Infanteer reading, please prioritize.

 

[Kirkhill]

Serious response:

20 platoons of rifles organized into 5 companies.  All platoons of the same size.  Senior riflemen grouped in two companies double hatted with specialist skills.  Recce (1) Pioneer (2) Transport (3) Machine Gun (4) Anti Tank (5) Anti Air (6) Mortar (7) Mortar ( 8 )  or some such variant.

Rifle Coys of 3 rifle platoons and a 4th platoon of identical size and organization but equipped with support weapons.

Start from the premise that a platoon is a platoon is a platoon.  And at the end of the day that platoon, under its commanders, can be tasked with anything Her Majesty desires, down to and including sweeping streets.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just wondering, after the Infantry takes on all these roles, how many rifles will they have left? Serious question. Wasn't that part of the reason we are at where we are today?

I do agree that Inf should have AD, and I also agree they need AT, Pioneer and IDF, but none of these are secondary tasks all require extensive training.

If there is an Infanteer reading, please prioritize.

They did do all these tasks before, I am sure it was a struggle at times, I guess it is a case of prioritizing PY's to the Combat trades and those that directly support them. 

 

[GnyHwy]

They did do all these tasks before, I am sure it was a struggle at times, I guess it is a case of prioritizing PY's to the Combat trades and those that directly support them. 

It is all about PYs today.

Serious response: 20 platoons of rifles organized into 5 companies.

Serious rebuttal, lol.  ;D , but is that a big Bn or a small Regt? Or are we freelancing?

Edited to add: Still digesting the other 8 secondary tasks. I take them seriously, but have doubts.