MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[CBH99]

Bird_gunner,

I can't quote anything specific from your post as I am still not very good at using this IPAD. 

But a range if 8km seems extremely short, given the weapons that can be launched from opposing aircraft can be launched from a much greater distance?

I agree that the CF NEEDS an AD capability, hands down.  And it doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive or complicated.  A simple, cost effective solution should be relatively easy to find, fund, and field. 

What are your thoughts on a range capability though?  8km seems short.  Even if the CF went with a MANPAD system, would it not be easy to have something with a 20km range to it?  (ADATS was 10km, and that seemed limited too.)

I'm not a SME by any means, curious to hear your opinion on it. 

 

[blacktriangle]

Although not addressed to me (and again, not a SME either) I would say it would come down to fuel, complexity and cost of systems required. Check out the size and weight of some the Naval SAMs like the SM-2 or ESSM. Not exactly going to shoulder launch one.

I'd be far more inclined to have friendly fighters engage the enemy aircraft, and have GBAD counter any munitions that slip through the defensive shield (as well as low flying helicopters or UAVs). I'd want something that is realistic in terms of size, cost and complexity so that's it's ACTUALLY procured, and able to easily be deployed alongside our forces as needed.

Look forward to what the actual AD guy has to say.

 

[MilEME09]

For against helicopters, why not say the British Marksman anti-aircraft system, CV90AAV, or the German Gepard, we have tons a leo 1 hulls now with the Leo 2 coming in. While I don't think we should have AD regiments, perhaps every Artillery Regiment might have a Company sized AD element.

 

[blacktriangle]

why not say the British Marksman anti-aircraft system, CV90AAV, or the German Gepard

...size, complexity, costs. I'd rather something that will actually be there when it is needed, not parked in Gagetown or Wx.

 

[MilEME09]

...size, complexity, costs. I'd rather something that will actually be there when it is needed, not parked in Gagetown or Wx.

So some kind of shoulder fired weapon? or a simple towed AAA system any one could be trained on?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Bird_gunner,

I can't quote anything specific from your post as I am still not very good at using this IPAD. 

But a range if 8km seems extremely short, given the weapons that can be launched from opposing aircraft can be launched from a much greater distance?

I agree that the CF NEEDS an AD capability, hands down.  And it doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive or complicated.  A simple, cost effective solution should be relatively easy to find, fund, and field. 

What are your thoughts on a range capability though?  8km seems short.  Even if the CF went with a MANPAD system, would it not be easy to have something with a 20km range to it?  (ADATS was 10km, and that seemed limited too.)

I'm not a SME by any means, curious to hear your opinion on it.

The range of 8km is short, but the effectiveness of the range of the AD system is based on the Line of weapon release of the gun or missile system being utilized (In AD planning, the weapon is more important than the delivery system). So, in planning we would determine, based on the platforms what sort of munition is likely to be used against the assets that we are given as the AD priorities.  We then reverse engineer how we would anticipate the air platform or delivery system to attack our defended assets including weapon stand off ranges (line of weapon release).  We would then ensure that the deployment of the AD systems is far enough forward to intercept the air platform before it reaches the LWR.  If not possible than passive AD measures are recommended.  With C-RAM (and the former 35mm Gun Skyguard) we now have the added capability of engaging munitions with longer stand off ranges improving the overall AD capability.

Further, for the most part, GBAD assets, including SHORAD, MANPAD, and HIMAD (Patriot) will be netted together with Naval and Air Force AD fighters to create an integrated air defence system.  To this end, the Area air defence commander can actively pair targets with the best system for intercept.  For example, fighter against fighter, SHORAD against helicopter and UAS, VSHORAD against aviation or UAS, C-RAM against cruise or ballistic missiles, etc.

For most conventional PGMs the stand off range is anywhere from 2-10km, with the plane needing to stay, at minimum, 1km off the deck for delivery.  Cruise missiles or HAR missiles can have ranges up to 100's of KM, so C-RAM and gun systems would be more appropriate.  Also, consider the paradigm that to use precision munitions the enemy has to be able to target our asset with a precise grid.  The ability to stop him from gaining this intelligence (via UAS, recce helo, etc) significantly degrades his ability to use long range precision weapons.

As for ranges, there are some AD systems such as SLAAMRAAM that have extended ranges up to 20000m, but most MANPAD systems are limited to the 2-8 km range. A 8 KM missile, for our threat model, with a C-RAM "backstop" would provide the range.  In reality, the system must also be netted into the IADS to be optimally employed, so vehicle mounted systems are preferable.

Mil EME- The British systems tend to be single purpose whereas we would be better with multi-purpose missile system.  For example, the star streak is designed to knock out hinds- it fires 3 hyper sonic darts to puncture the hull.  While effective against this threat it is only minimally effective against air and UAS targets, and has no application against munitions.  The RBS 70, with a proximity fuze, can effectively engage more targets.

The idea of keep a battery of AD in the CS arty regiments is a COA that is being floated.  For example, the C-RAM capability would be kept at 4 GS Regt as the "Div" AD asset with the radars and the MANPAD would be with the CS regiment.  The advantage is that we achieve traditional tiering.  The disadvantages are that AD units have rarely faired well when paired with their Field arty peers (often ending up as driver pool) and that this model takes away operational flexibility to "mix and match" expeditionary capabilities based on the threat or to Force generate AD troops for domestic tasks.  For example, if we deploy in an A-stan scenario than the MANPAD battery in the CS regiment would not deploy with the rest of the regiment, whereas the C-RAM and radars may deploy.  If we create a modularized AD Battery/mini regiment than we can task tailor more effectively and maximize training by not dispersing assets.

What we need is a C-RAM/gun capability and a simple, easy to deploy MANPAD/missile system, not another ADATS. 

 

[MilEME09]

For the gun capability would you prefer to see a fixed towed system or something mounted on a vehicle as a SPAAG? Would the MANPADS be AD only or all trades would get training on how to use them? Coming from a CSS unit where we are in charge of rear area security technically by doctrine I'd want to have an asset to protect me from air.

 

[a_majoor]

I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.

Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.

Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.

Thuc,

I would disagree with the starstreak as being a good fit for Canada.  The pre-eminent threat from the air is UAS, particularly small and mini.  While mini UAS will likely be a AAAD task due to it's size (with early warning provided to the AAAD unit by the ASCC) SUAS and TUAS will remain GBAD targets along with aviation.  Starstreak, because of it's 3 darts does not offer much of a capability for engaging small targets such as a SUAS, particularly at a range of over 2000m (which by that time the UAS has already likely gotten any info it requires).  The darts seperate and have little surface area, meaning they require a direct hit.  A proximity fuze, such as found on a RBS 70, offers a better hit ratio for smaller targets while having the ability to be set to impact for helicopters and other targets.  Plus, RBS 70 has a range of 8000m and a fully digitized/netted C2 suite (whereas the Brits still use the old Manual early warning system/Bingo for early warning) that can provide the det commander, even when dismounted, with the entire air picture.

For the C-RAM task the future does appear to be DEW, however, guns still have some relevance if helicopters or infantry/armour approach the defended asset... the 35mm were a hell of a direct fire weapon

 

[Colin Parkinson]

AD detachments using Manpads like the old Blowpipe troops would not be hard to sustain and with simulators being much better nowadays, you can get better practice in without the expense of firing missiles all the time. With the gradual withdraw of the 105mm from Reserves troops, equipping some of them with a light towed gun in a calibre such as 25mm  which can use existing ammo as well as dedicated AD ammo would help build some corporate knowledge about AD into the CF and with minimal training costs and support issues. Some of the Reserves can also be UAV troops using lightweight UAV's and with a small research budget to create new mini-tactical UAV themselves.

 

[a_majoor]

Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.

There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

not that we would ever acquire a Russian system, but the "Pantsyr" AD system the Russians have is quite capable and would in fact meet our needs.

The Pantsyr is employed as a Counter PGM system by the Russians to defend their key assets that they anticipate us using PGMs/cruise missiles against, including AD Radars, C2 nodes, etc based on their lessons learned from the 2 US wars with Iraq.

The system is mounted on a BTR chassis and equipped with short range missiles as well, and is fully network capable

 

[Kirkhill]

Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.

There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).

Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?

You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).

Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?

55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder? 

I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.

 

[a_majoor]

There are a lot of factors, and of course the CF is missing a lot of the pieces to create a fully integrated system (like transport).

But driving around the battlefield in a vehicle which has different mobility and protection characteristics than the systems you are allegedly protecting will give rise to many other problems. I'm sure that the pending introduction of the TLAV to Infantry battalions will drive that point home for this generation.

Yes, many shoulder fired missiles are man portable, and in many applications missiles like Starstreak can be dismounted for use as a MANPAD as well. But (sticking with the Starstreak for the moment) a vehicle like the Stormer can carry 8 missiles and 8 reloads, so a vehicle crew can prosecute multiple targets and provide persistent coverage. Add a sensor system and linkage to larger systems and the vehicle mounted system becomes far more capable. Using the vehicle to integrate multiple systems (like the Blazer turret with a gun, Starstreak and RBS-70) allows the system to cover a wider range of threats than a single system alone.

I do feel your pain with the size/weight issue of the vehicles themselves, but looking ahead (very far ahead for us, I'm afraid), we can consider the ROK's K-21, which is largely built from composite materials and quite a bit lighter than comparable vehicles like the PUMA. There are reasons to believe that whatever replaces the LAV will be much lighter while having a comparable level of protection.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?

You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).

Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?

55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder? 

I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.

The biggest requirement for a vehicle is to ensure that the system has the sensors and data link capability to make it interoperable within the integrated air defence network (multinational, joint service, etc).  For the AD this is more critical than most arms (and this is not a dig) as engagements move immensely quickly.  Imagine, the reaction time for an ADATS det against mid level FAs was 10 seconds with 25 km cueing.  That means if an aircraft picked up in Saint John the Det has a total of 30 seconds from flash to bang. 

The datalink integration, requiring a Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) or EPLRS if there is not integral sensor, is what gives the det the extra time to effectively engage.  Even in cases where the enemy isn't jets but something like a SUAV, the ability to cue from a radar to a dispersed MANPAD det is critical as, in all likelihood, the det cannot physically see the UAV let along engage it.  Finally, for the system to be used effectively, particularly in an ADO environment, it requires integration into the Area Air Defence Commander's Area air defence plan.  Without integration its basically blind.

Vehicles also offer the potential for better FLIR, EO, and passive AD sensor suites that can offer survivability for the det and better engagement accuracy than holding the missile.

PLUS, dismounted doesn't normally offer a Cooker-Boiling Unit and plugging a coffee maker in is next to impossible (unless you deploy to Lawfield shack!).

 

[McG]

What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.

 

[TCBF]

What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.

- A 'Hammer's Slammer' solution. Might work with beam weapons, but has a serious downside when it starts to empty bins of cased (or even caseless) ammunition that someone needs to fill before taking the next bound. Not to mention crew hydraulic/electric safety issues. I don't need my turret traversing when I am dismounting or mounting - or filling my bins from the last surprise burst.

 

[McG]

Obviously, the vehicle crew would have to have some control - approving the fire and disengaging the system completely when it would impede other tasks or be dangerous.

 

[Hudyma]

Was having a chat with a MCpl on my DP1 this summer about Canada's air defense capability.  Is there any hope we will see some incarnation of the ADATs in the near future?

 

[McG]

No.