All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[daftandbarmy]

There is lots of video out there of how other “less organized” armies are using UAV, drones in combat, generally they are either overhead or within 1,000m of the battle. They are being used to direct infantry, vehicles or artillery in real time to maximize their attacks. The response must be very immediate, literally you have about 10-20 minutes to destroy the drone to prevent it from carrying out its mission and at a cost of $500-$1,000, they might have multiple ones ready to go if one is shot down and the mission is worth it. Now the commercial drones can be disrupted by jammers for now, but it won’t take long for someone to work around that, so one needs to assume that we will have to shoot them down, while at the same time working on electronic suppressors. While the .50cal could be used in a twin or quad mount, likely better to have 20mm-25mm as a minimum to get the reach and hopefully some proximity fuzed rounds, to improve hit rate.

Forget guns.... there's a golden opportunity to reintroduce 'combat falconry' to the Art of War!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If I have the doctrine right, there is only one sky and one piece of air space, and it belongs to the joint force commander.  He appoints the Area Air Defence Commander (AADC), who ensures that friendly airpower (arguably the biggest strength of NATO/Western forces) can operate without getting blasted out of the sky by friendly forces.

Read JP 3-30 if you want to understand the system.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jointpub_operations.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_30.pdf

You have it correct. Normally COM JFAC manages airspace issues in the JOA on behalf of the JFC through the Airspace Control Plan (ACP). There is only one airspace and only one plan. That said, sub areas can be delegated to whomever it makes operational senses to do so. Often, control of the airspace below a certain altitude will just be passed to the LCC because it just makes sense to do so.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

There is lots of video out there of how other “less organized” armies are using UAV, drones in combat, generally they are either overhead or within 1,000m of the battle. They are being used to direct infantry, vehicles or artillery in real time to maximize their attacks. The response must be very immediate, literally you have about 10-20 minutes to destroy the drone to prevent it from carrying out its mission and at a cost of $500-$1,000, they might have multiple ones ready to go if one is shot down and the mission is worth it. Now the commercial drones can be disrupted by jammers for now, but it won’t take long for someone to work around that, so one needs to assume that we will have to shoot them down, while at the same time working on electronic suppressors. While the .50cal could be used in a twin or quad mount, likely better to have 20mm-25mm as a minimum to get the reach and hopefully some proximity fuzed rounds, to improve hit rate.

The .50 cal is out of service, so that might be an issue.

As for the UAS, yes, you are right and that is exactly what had been discussed previously. However, there is an infinitesimal chance of a MUAS being visually seen and SUAS can stand off up to 2 km away (Scan Eagle as an example could do 2 km comfortably) so is unlikely to be seen by an inf coy or other sub-unit, let alone engaged. AAAD is still a thing, but people need to be realistic about this- without a radar/ADSI any firing unit would be of dubious value, if not a danger to friendly assets. SO unless early warning is pushed down to the sub-unit by the ASCC via the IADS than there's little to no chance of detecting these AVs.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If I have the doctrine right, there is only one sky and one piece of air space, and it belongs to the joint force commander.  He appoints the Area Air Defence Commander (AADC), who ensures that friendly airpower (arguably the biggest strength of NATO/Western forces) can operate without getting blasted out of the sky by friendly forces.

Read JP 3-30 if you want to understand the system.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jointpub_operations.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_30.pdf

:goodpost:

 

[Kirkhill]

Article about the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II with its new active radar seeker increasing its effectiveness

Given that the missile is compatible with the Navy's MK41 VLS and a variety of other launchers, including the NASAMs GBAD MML I thought it would be worthwhile putting the info into the Joint community rather than a Service stove pipe.  What is the closest compatible Air Force variant? 

Watch The Navy Fire Its New Evolved Sea Sparrow Block II Missile For The First Time
This new version of the Sea Sparrow features its own active radar seeker that will make fending off swarms of cruise missiles much more plausible.

BY TYLER ROGOWAYNOVEMBER 2, 2017
THE WAR ZONEAIR DEFENSEANTI-SHIP MISSILESBLOCK IIESSMEVOLVED SEA SPARROW MISSILEFIRST LAUNCHQUAD PACKRIM-162RIM-7SAMTEST LAUNCH

TYLER ROGOWAY

The NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium is decades old and still going very strong. The highly maneuverable RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) has been protecting allied surface combatants and their escorts for nearly 15 years now around the globe and is seen as a huge success. Before that, the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, itself an adaptation of the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile, had served since the mid 1970s, protecting everything from American supercarriers to allied frigates from airborne threats and short to medium-ranges. Now the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II is on the way, with its first test firings having occurred last Summer and the Navy just recently released video from these milestone events.



By Tyler Rogoway
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

The ESSM Block II's first two test launches occurred aboard the Navy's test ship, the modified Spruance class destroyer USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964), last June off the coast of Southern California. Both tests appear to have been successful.



The ESSM Block II has much in common with its progenitor, including its ability to be quad-packed into a single Mk41 vertical launch system cell. It can also make use of "legacy" launchers like the Mk29 box launcher that still adorns American supercarriers, amphibious flattops, and other allied vessels. The Block II uses the Block I's rocket motor and thrust vectoring hot section, but its seeker is much more capable.



USN
A RIM-162 ESSM is seen fired from an aircraft carrier's Mk29 launcher, below are the radar illuminators used to guide the missile to its target
Instead of relying on semi-active radar guidance, where one of the ship's radar illuminators has to "paint" the target for the missile to guide toward and eventually detonate nearby, ESSM Block II features both active and semi-active radar seekers. This dual-mode seeker setup combined with a datalink allows the missile to be fired at targets without ever having the ship illuminate the target at all. The missile gets mid-course updates from the ship via a datalink for longer distance engagements, or it can be launched "fire and forget" for shorter engagements. Fire and forget mode can be used for longer-range shots too, with the missile flying out to its best guess of where the target will be on its own inertial guidance system before turning on its active radar seeker, but the chances of a successful intercept will decrease the farther the missile flies without the benefit of mid-course updates.


USN
The physical changes between the Block I and Block II ESSM are minima but the tactical impact that the Block II's new guidance section will have will be major. Range will likely stay about the same on paper, about 30-45 miles depending on the source, but adjusted flight profiles due to the missile's new terminal guidance system may allow for longer, more efficient engagements.
This dual mode setup solves a huge problem for the ESSM Block I, as ships have limited capacity to defend themselves due to a finite number of illuminators available to guide each individual missile through their separate terminal attacks. Even though ESSMs could be rippled off quickly at many targets, there simply isn't enough illuminator guidance capacity to support them, even when illuminator time is tightly managed.

This is no longer an issue with ESSM Block II, giving ships much greater capacity to defend themselves against a multi-missile swarm attack, and especially ones emanating from different vectors with missiles flying disparate attack profiles. Additionally, the Block II can still leverage the older style of guidance, using the ship's illuminators to paint the target, which may be advantageous in some instances, and by using both seekers the probability of a kill would likely increase.


USN
The original RIM-7 Sea Sparrow Missile served for decades, with it being best known for providing the second to last layer of defense around American flattops. Here you can see one being launched out of the Mk29 box launcher. Note the missile's folding fins, a major difference between it and its air-launched cousin.
Also, in a networked battlespace, ESSM Block II can intercept sea skimming anti-ship missiles at greater distances, even when shipborne illuminators, or even radars of any type, are unable to detect or paint the low-flying targets. The ESSM Block II can leverage third party sensor tracks (from another ship, aircraft etc) under the Navy's cooperative engagement initiatives and fly out towards its target at altitude, and then dive down on it from above, using its own active X-band radar seeker to lock up the target and destroy it. This will be especially useful when opening up the missile's secondary surface attack functions in littoral environments.

All told, RIM-162 ESSM Block II offers a lot of extra capability without having to redevelop the entire missile. And for the US Navy in particular, which fields large amounts of these missiles on its destroyers, cruisers, amphibious flattops, and aircraft carriers, this capability is badly needed. Not just that, but it's also a real value. The ESSM program is funded cooperatively between the US and allied nations that are part of the consortium. The split is roughly 40% United States and 60% foreign partners. So the US Navy gets an updated ESSM with critical new capabilities for 40% of the cost of developing it alone.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15718/watch-the-navy-fire-its-new-evolved-sea-sparrow-block-ii-missile-for-the-first-time

 

[NavyShooter]

I've observed the LEAP forward in capability that the RIM-162 has given the RCN as compared to the RIM-7.

Hearing that there's a block II that's even better?

Woohoo!

Please bring it on!

 

[Kirkhill]

Bump

Some thoughts on what a General Support Regiment might end up looking like - if an American option prevails.

Is the Army ready to transform its missile defense force?

WASHINGTON — The Army is coming out with a new missile defense strategy this summer and the Pentagon is expected to release an overarching missile defense review in short order. Combined, the initiatives will guide the way the future air-and-missile defense force will operate.....

The Army needs to think about more distributed AMD operations as it faces new threats, according to Tom Karako, one of the authors of the CSIS report and director of the Missile Defense Project at the think tank.

Sign up for our Daily News Roundup
The top Defense News stories of the daySubscribe
Karako proposes several operational concepts to direct the services toward more distributed air and missile defense from enabling launch- and engage-on-remote capabilities and better networking systems to dispersing elements of missile defense batteries over a wider area.

He also suggests designing launchers to accommodate mixed loads of interceptors that he calls “layered defense in a box.”

The Army should also consider offense-defense launchers that can be used for both missions and containerized launchers that can be better concealed, as well as a “passive defense shell game” where numerous “dummy launchers” with optical, thermal and electronic signatures would be in some containers while real launchers would be in others, increasing the guesswork for the enemy.

“Such deployments could impose costs on an adversary, as well as present them with new dilemmas, such as the expenditure of resources on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance or the wastage of precision-guided munitions,” the report states.

Vince Sabio, the program manager for the hypervelocity gun weapon system at the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, said the current AMD force is inflexible, only designed for ballistic missile threats, and is expensive.

He said new capability needs to be able to defend a 360-degree area of coverage and handle threats coming from many trajectories. The AMD force needs to be able to engage multiple

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/01/26/is-the-army-ready-to-transform-its-missile-defense-force/

And a related article about knocking down missiles with 155s and 4.5s

$86,000 + 5,600 MPH = Hyper Velocity Missile Defense

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/86000-5600-mph-hyper-velocity-missile-defense/

 

[a_majoor]

The big problem in thinking about anti air defence is there are so many possible "engagement bands" to cover. Dealing with long range missiles and bombers requires a far different set of equipment than dealing with tiny quad copter UAV's.

Layering up air defence systems is pretty time and resource intensive, and the former Soviet Union and current Russian doctrine embraces doing that mostly because they are much weaker in offensive air power. Soviet/Russian CAPs would not be anywhere near as effective as NATO USAF air cover.

Still, we have been asleep at the switch in Canada since the end of the Cold War, having no air defence capability whatsoever. Possibly a good short term solution would be to arm selected LAV's with a missile pod, much like the USMC "Blaser" or US Army "Linebacker" (a conversion of the M-2 where the TOW launcher was replaced by a 4 missile Stinger pod), which would at least address the most glaring deficiency against attack helicopters and low flying attack aircraft.

Farther in the future, looking at laser and microwave weapons for anti UAV/UCAV and C-RAM missions is probably worth while, I doubt we have the resources or manpower base to expand anti air much further than local protection frommthe platoon to the battlegroup level. Dual purpose weapons like 50mm auto cannon with guided rounds may be worth while, the extra firepower for ground elements will be welcomed.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Nice to hear that the Canadian Army is looking at reviving its Ground-based AD Capability.

Air Defence: Reacquiring a vital capability
Jun 27, 2019 | News, Procurement
By Ian Coutts

There is a classic cartoon by Bing Coughlin from the Canadian Army’s old Maple Leaf newspaper featuring Herbie, his archetypal Canadian soldier of the Second World War. In it, Herbie, cowering with his pals in a crude shelter in the midst of a fiendish bombardment, looks up and notices an astounding selection of objects hurtling overhead – a steel rail, a big pipe, a stove and, as he remarks incredulously, “Even the kitchen sink!”

There must have been times when it felt like that. And indeed, times today when it still does. A modern soldier looking up in the battlespace might see a bewildering array of objects passing overhead: Not merely fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, but mortar shells, cruise missiles, surface-to-surface rockets and even, potentially, swarms of drones. All intent on doing him or her harm.

Hopes are the Army’s new Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) system will help to counteract all of these threats, by sometime in the middle of the next decade. In the not-so distant past, the Army could field a selection of weapons capable of engaging low-flying aircraft, ranging from shoulder-launched Javelin missiles to a radar controlled Oerlikon-Contraves GDF 35mm twin cannon, to Aerospace Oerlikon’s combined air defence anti-tank system. The last of those air defence capabilities was retired in 2012.

Canada wasn’t alone in neglecting these systems. As Major Bruno Di Ilio, the lead on the GBAD project, pointed out, “There was a big downturn on the West’s part in terms of air defence capability because we always thought we had air superiority, so we didn’t need it.”

However, said Di Ilio, experiences with mortars and surface-to-surface fire in Afghanistan, along with recent conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere, have led to a reappraisal of air defence. As well, there is a growing awareness of the dangers posed by drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

For all these reasons, after a gap of several years, the search for a new ground air defense system was listed in Strong, Secure Engaged, the government’s June 2017 defence policy, as one of the Army’s key priorities.

When Di Ilio, himself a gunner, discusses GBAD, he talks about it as “a system of systems.” At heart, it involves four key components: A sensor system using both radar and electro-optical or infrared components – the new medium range radar will contribute part of that; an air defence management component to identify aerial threats; and a communications system.

Fourth and finally, he said, “If there is a threat, we need an effector capability to neutralize and/or defeat the threat.” This is where GBAD gets interesting. The system may depend on “hard kill” options, the so-called “kinetic” weapons like guns or missiles, or “soft kill” weapons, of which high-energy lasers or electronic jamming might be prime examples.

In fact, the system might rely on both. That’s reflective of a major shift in targets, which previously emphasized an anti-aircraft response.

“Our primary target set is the RAM [rocket, artillery, mortar] projectiles,” said Di Ilio. “The other category that fits into the primary target set is air-to-surface munitions, essentially those delivered from helicopters or fixed-wing platforms.”

Beyond that, GBAD will also prioritize UAVs, “mainly the small unmanned systems and the Class II systems, which are up to about 500 kilograms in weight.”

Dealing with such a selection of threats is a daunting task. As Di Ilio put it, “a mortar shell is very small and very difficult to take out.” But not impossible. In August 2018, as part of the options analysis phase of the GBAD project, Di Ilio and his colleagues sent out a request for information to potential suppliers outlining the project’s goals.

“We ended up receiving over 15 packages,” he said. “Some of them were just specifically focused on missile systems, some were on gun systems. All of them, though, provided a complete package of sensors, communications, command and control and the effector platforms.”

He and his colleagues are also looking at what allies have adopted or are considering. “We’re not looking at going into development to build a system that is one-of,” he said. “Whatever the UK or the US are planning on procuring, we’re very much interested. There are savings to be had if we have commonality of fleets.”

He cautioned, though, that it is still early days. “You have to consider that we are not procuring this for at least another five years. What we’re doing right now is evaluating the different systems. Some of them are operational and some are systems that are in development.”

Di Ilio said that whatever the Army acquires, it must be capable of providing air defence for a brigade, whether it is involved in peacekeeping or in a conflict zone, which means the area to be protected could vary greatly in size. The Army will also need enough systems to provide cover for two separate deployments at the same time.

The precise structure of the units operating the system hasn’t been determined but, he said added, “We’re going to have a structure based on troops and batteries similar to the organization that we have in the artillery now.”

The Army pegs the cost at between $250 million and $499 million, but that is very much an estimate. The goal is for an initial operating capability by 2025. After which, who knows, maybe they’ll even be able to shoot down that kitchen sink.

Link includes photos.

 

[daftandbarmy]

All I can say is 'Thank Gawd.... finally....'

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Since we have "Vapourware, killnothing system" a set of over and unders would be a step up.

 

[DeweyB]

When do you think they'll be able to pull this off realistically?

 

[a_majoor]

Given the recent attacks on the Saudi AMOCO facility by Iranian drones or cruise missiles, it looks like one key issue is to find a system or architecture which can realistically respond to swarms of inexpensive air vehicles. Of course today the threat has expanded dramatically from "low and slow" to hypersonic boost/glide vehicles, so this is going to be a long and arduous process.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well you have Reserve Artillery with almost no guns, select a number of them to become AD and form a battery. Buy some Manpad simulators. I get you could build a mount for the 25mm used in the LAV as a AD gun for small drones. That could be done here in Canada. Start somewhere and build the knowledge base again.

 

[Loch Sloy!]

Maybe we should keep the 76mm guns from the Iroquois fleet and use them as a GBAD training tool. There are some very interesting ammunition natures for this system, and  it has also previously been mounted on a tank chassis as a SPAA system (proof of concept) so its certainly possible to use it this way.

First link removed per site guidelines.
https://army.ca/forums/threads/99046/post-1015747.html#msg1015747


https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=951

 

[tomahawk6]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/11/raytheon-anticipates-international-boom-in-counter-drone-sales/

 

[MilEME09]

Well you have Reserve Artillery with almost no guns, select a number of them to become AD and form a battery. Buy some Manpad simulators. I get you could build a mount for the 25mm used in the LAV as a AD gun for small drones. That could be done here in Canada. Start somewhere and build the knowledge base again.

Funny thing is some Reserve Arty were AD units, 20th Independent Field Battery in Lethbridge used to be 20th Air defense battery until just after I got in. While I'd support getting such a capability back to the PRes, lets make sure we have a strong Reg F element first in the AD realm.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Given the recent attacks on the Saudi AMOCO facility by Iranian drones or cruise missiles, it looks like one key issue is to find a system or architecture which can realistically respond to swarms of inexpensive air vehicles. Of course today the threat has expanded dramatically from "low and slow" to hypersonic boost/glide vehicles, so this is going to be a long and arduous process.

Maybe we should start with a system that could defeat a squadron of fanatical Piper Cub pilots armed with hand grenades.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Lot's of pictures of Reserve arty units using the US 90mm gun with radar and predictor, generally doing shoots at Albert Head as I recall. funny how we used to be able to maintain complex equipment in the Reserves.....

 

[FJAG]

Funny thing is some Reserve Arty were AD units, 20th Independent Field Battery in Lethbridge used to be 20th Air defense battery until just after I got in. While I'd support getting such a capability back to the PRes, lets make sure we have a strong Reg F element first in the AD realm.

There were actually a number of reserve artillery units that served in the air defence role using the Javelin missile from roughly 1992 to 2006/7 or so. Each unit was a mix of both regular and reserve soldiers. 18 AD Regt RCA in Lethbridge (previously and afterwards 20 Ind Fd Bty RCA); 1 AD Regt RCA Pembroke ON (subsequently 42 Fd Regt (Lanark and Renfrew Scottish)) and 58 AD Bty, 6 Fd Regt RCA Levis, PQ.

Prior to their formation in roughly 1980 or so (I could be out a year or two) each RCHA Regt had a Blowpipe missile (which was a Brit piece of sh*t) AD Bty added to it. Those were closed out when the three mixed Reg/Res Regts/Bties were formed. We did keep a Reg F 4th AD Regt for quite a while until it became 4 GS Regt.

I was long gone from the guns by the time all this started to shut down so do not know what the reasons were. I presume the change over from the RCHA bties to 1AD, 18 AD and 58AD were an attempt to save RegF PYs while maintaining the AD capability. I'm going to contact a friend of mine who was in the AD business and find out why the thing shut down in 2006. My guess again is PYs and $.

:cheers: