• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
MilEME09 said:
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.

What he said.

The Hornet is a F/A-18.  The difference between the F-18 and the A-18 is the load out hanging from its wings.

The Boeing F/A-18A/B/C/D family has nine weapons stations:

1 & 9, at the wingtips, have a single rail launcher for an AIM-9 type store.
2, 3, 7, & 8, located under the left and right wings, have mounting points for SUU-63A or SUU-63A/A pylons. The pylons in turn support a BRU-32/A ejector rack, to which various stores or launchers are attached. These stations may have a bomb loaded directly upon them, or have a multiple-ejector rack with several stores, or various rail-type launchers for air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles:
A LAU-115 rail-type launcher for an AIM-7;[4]
A LAU-115 with two LAU-7 or LAU-127 launchers, one bolted to either side, for two AIM-9 or AIM-120s;[5]
A LAU-117 for an AGM-65 Maverick;[6]
A LAU-118 for an AGM-88 HARM [7]
4 & 6, which are located on the sides of the fuselage, are LAU-116 ejector-type launchers for AIM-7 and AIM-120 missiles. Station 4 can also support a Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) pod for detecting and marking targets.
5, which is on the centerline underneath the fuselage, mounts a smaller SUU-62/A pylon and a BRU-32 rack, and many of the same stores as the wing pylons. The exception is anything rocket-powered, to avoid endangering the nose landing gear.[citation needed]
3, 5, & 7, are 'wet' feed fuel to and from external fuel tanks.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
652
Points
910
Not sure if our systems are wire guided or wireless?

From wiki
The TOW ITAS consists of three new line replaceable units: the target acquisition subsystem (TAS), the fire control subsystem (FCS), and the lithium battery box (LBB); a modified TOW 2 traversing unit; the existing TOW launch tube and tripod; and a TOW Humvee modification kit. The TAS integrates into a single housing the direct view optics and missile tracker, a second-generation forward looking infrared (FLIR) night vision sight (NVS), and a laser rangefinder. TAS electronics provide automatic boresighting for these components, eliminating both tactical collimation and 180-day verification requirements. The integral cooling system for the IR optics is a modern SADA-II electrically powered cryocooler, removing the need to carry a supply of high-pressure coolant gas cartridges as was necessary for the previous AN/TAS-4 and AN/TAS-4A night sights.

The most recent addition to the ITAS system is the ITAS-FTL (far target location), which incorporates a new module called PADS (position attitude determination subsystem), a device that attaches to the top of the ITAS sighting unit and uses differential GPS tracking to relay precise coordinate data to the operator.[17]


I note the Dutch are replacing their TOW's with GILL. I wonder if perhaps give our infantry companies something like Spike -SR or similar (with Carl G as well) for the short ranged stuff, then the TUA is either armour or Artillery to provide longer range support. This keeps them more mobile.

Currently it makes sense to have separate AD and AT elements based on the LAV 6 for any light or Heavy brigade. We should also look to a smaller platform similar to what we had with the TOW mounted on jeeps(m151) to support lightweight missions where the LAV won't be going. Also a lightweight MANPAD system that can be mounted like the Mistral missile with the Simbad dual mount on smaller vehicles (be good for small RCN ships as well)

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
As an alternative to the LAV based MMEV type launcher there is also this concept which could be mounted on our new armourable 10 tonne trucks

mml.jpg


More of an RCA system than the LAV based unit - launching straight from the limber

And you can always just drop off the limber.

NASAMS-launcher.jpg
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
642
Points
940
Colin P said:
.... We should also look to a smaller platform similar to what we had with the TOW mounted on jeeps(m151) to support lightweight missions where the LAV won't be going. Also a lightweight MANPAD system that can be mounted like the Mistral missile with the Simbad dual mount on smaller vehicles (be good for small RCN ships as well)

In the US Army, only the light infantry battalions have a weapons company which provides the battalion with it's heavy direct fire systems.

images


Note that there are four platoons in the company and each platoon has five HMVWWs; a platoon commander and two sections of two vehicles each. Within the platoon are two vehicles capable of mounting the platoons 2 X TOW ITAS (or using them dismounted). In addition the platoon has: two Javelins; two .50 HMGs and two Mk19 grenade launchers. This gives the platoon some flexibility to configure itself for specific missions. There is also a mortar platoon but with the Headquarters company which has four 120mm and four 81 mm mortars but only enough personnel to operate four tubes at a time. Again providing task specific flexibility. Each of the three rifle companies has a 60mm mortar section while each of the company's three rifle platoons has a weapon's squad with two Javelins and two MMGs.

Neither the Armoured Infantry nor Stryker Infantry battalions have a weapons company. Until recently, each Stryker rifle company had a three gun MGS platoon, however, these have been withdrawn and a few given to the Stryker brigade's cavalry squadron. There are Javelins within the battalion but the heavier anti-armour force is at the SBCT brigade level where there is an anti-armour company of three platoons each of three Stryker anti-armour variants with TOW. Armoured infantry in the ABCT is organized into combined arms battalions of mixed M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys so no need for a weapons platoon. Each Bradley has a 25mm and a TOW launcher.

Note as well that generally at the brigade level there are no organic AD resources. The standard system of AD is by way of an Avenger Bty assigned into the brigades AO but, like everything else during the War on Terror, the US basically reassigned most Avenger battalions to the National Guard. They are making a big interim comeback until IM-SHORAD starts deploying. Similarly the use of ManPADs has been mostly put aside but is slowly making its way back into the system at the manoeuvre brigade level.

This really is the problem when we talk anti-armour and air defence. Once you take the skill set out of the army, it takes a maximum effort to build it back up which can last several years. It's not only the weapons operator that needs training but the need to reestablish the doctrine and TTPs back into the system. It's like machine guns. You can pretty much teach anyone to shoot a machine gun but it takes a major effort to teach people how to "employ" them properly for maximum effect.

And I'll say this again: air defence and anti-armour are not things you need every day but when the time comes you'll want a bunch. Perfect role for reserves. If necessary, where there are some high tech or knowledge aspects to the job, then make the units hybrid ones with a small core of RegF folks.

:cheers:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
652
Points
910
To be honest I would not look to hard at the US system of AD, they have been rather negligent themselves. Perhaps the French or even the Russian would be a better model to study, not so much their equipment, but the type of equipment and where/how it is used.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
262
Points
910
Colin P said:
To be honest I would not look to hard at the US system of AD, they have been rather negligent themselves. Perhaps the French or even the Russian would be a better model to study, not so much their equipment, but the type of equipment and where/how it is used.

Pretty sure if we took the time, and investment we could get a small turret of AA missile's on to a TAPV, G-wagon or other light vehicles, maybe build it into the g wagon/ milcot replacement, or the LSVW Replacement.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
652
Points
910
I don't know how capable this system is, but it seems very popular and could be used for ships and the army, even with slight modification onto the LSVW or a Milcot. https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mistral-atlas/
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
630
Chris Pook said:
As an alternative to the LAV based MMEV type launcher there is also this concept which could be mounted on our new armourable 10 tonne trucks

mml.jpg


More of an RCA system than the LAV based unit - launching straight from the limber

And you can always just drop off the limber.

NASAMS-launcher.jpg

The top photo looks like the MML developed in-house by the US Army for the IFPC program. It seemed like they were trying to replicate the flexibility of VLS found on surface combatants. I think they've since decided to go a different route and split up some of the capabilities, but it was an interesting concept nonetheless. Bottom one is NASAMS I'm guessing?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
The USMC's Blazer conceptually has most of what we want, and by focusing on GBAD it is relatively straightforward to get, train crews and operate. As a practical matter, we might want to stick with a 25mm chain gun as opposed to a 25mm Gatling gun (the ammunition expenditure alone would be pretty extreme), and while the Marines had two "Stinger" pods, there was one version offered for sale which had radar guided missiles (French Mistral).

Given the operating environment, a "Blazer" type vehicle mounting one pod of radar guided missiles and a second pod of IR or laser guided missiles, backed with an automatic cannon should be able to deal with many types of threats, including ground threats.

For Chris, the more specialized FOO/FAC vehicle actually needs specialized optics. If you want to go all out the FOO/FAC would probably look more like the SBCT's reconnaissance vehicle, but with more antenna.
 

Attachments

  • download.jpg
    download.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 71
  • download-1.jpg
    download-1.jpg
    122.8 KB · Views: 81

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
Well this is certainly well out of the box thinking:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/09/06/sci-fi-awesome-a-us-army-howitzer-just-shot-down-a-cruise-missile/#cc924fd209e5

‘Sci-Fi Awesome’—A U.S. Army Howitzer Just Shot Down A Cruise Missile
David Axe
Aerospace & Defense

A U.S. Army self-propelled howitzer firing a Mach-5 shell just shot down a cruise missile for the first time.

It’s a big deal. Imagine, in some future war, Army howitzers ringing a strategic air base in the western Pacific, swatting down incoming missiles so the base’s planes can take off and land unmolested.

The shoot-down took place at the White Sands missile range in New Mexico on Wednesday. An M-109A6 Paladin tracked howitzer fired a 155-millimeter-diameter hypervelocity shell at an incoming BQM-167 target drone, blasting it to pieces.

“Tanks shooting down cruise missiles is awesome—video-game, sci-fi awesome,” said Will Roper, the U.S. Air Force’s top scientist.

The cannon-based air-defense was part of a two-day trial of a new command system the Air Force is developing. The Advanced Battle Management System is an artificial intelligence that takes sensor data from a whole bunch of different sources—satellites, stealth fighters, blimps, ground-based radar installations—and combines it.

What results is a digital picture of a whole battlefield. The A.I. then identifies the friendly forces that could destroy a particular target and gives commanders a menu from which to pick a shooter.

ABMS is big, ambitious and controversial. The Air Force wants it—and is willing to give up existing command planes in order to free up the money. Congress is skeptical the new control system will work as well as the Air Force insists it will.

More at link. Obviously a powered turret would make this far more effective, and an autoloader of some sort would provide the "burst" fire required for GBAD engagments. An armoured, self propelled chassis completes the picture. The Swedish FH-77 "Archer" seems like a logical starting point, being magazine fed and would only require the datalink to accept target information and perhaps a revised T&E mechanism to increase its ability to track targets.

As a bonus, getting this system would solve a lot of our self inflicted artillery woes as well



 

Attachments

  • download.jpg
    download.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 46

quadrapiper

Full Member
Reaction score
19
Points
230
Thucydides said:
The Swedish FH-77 "Archer" seems like a logical starting point, being magazine fed and would only require the datalink to accept target information and perhaps a revised T&E mechanism to increase its ability to track targets.

As a bonus, getting this system would solve a lot of our self inflicted artillery woes as well
Also designed by people with most of (all?) the same obstacles to movement and delightful weather found in Canada.

Might also be a diplomatic purchase to smooth things over should Gripen not be picked.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,617
Points
1,060
quadrapiper said:
Also designed by people with most of (all?) the same obstacles to movement and delightful weather found in Canada.

Might also be a diplomatic purchase to smooth things over should Gripen not be picked.

We should use caution when looking to neutral countries for examples to follow, militarily or otherwise :)
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
daftandbarmy said:
We should use caution when looking to neutral countries for examples to follow, militarily or otherwise :)

Yes, self-sufficiency, true independence, a strong reserve force and a successful defence industry. God forbid.  ;D

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,617
Points
1,060
LoboCanada said:
Yes, self-sufficiency, true independence, a strong reserve force and a successful defence industry. God forbid.  ;D

And the whole Aryan race/Nazism thing, which is awkward, and breathtaking in a horrible way when you actually see it in action :)

"The Sweden Democrats may have moved on from their neo-Nazi past, but Sweden is again grappling with rising support for neo-Nazi groups. One openly racist party, Alternative for Sweden, is campaigning on sending home immigrants who have Swedish citizenship. Another new party, Borgerlig Alternativ, is attempting to gather center-right voters who wish to see tighter immigration policy. These two groups, as well as the left-oriented Feminist Initiative party, are gaining attention but have little hope of passing the 4 percent threshold to enter the parliament. Yet on the extreme left, the Left Party, which is already in parliament, could very easily continue to do so. At the moment, nearly one in 10 voters is supporting this former Communist Party in the polls. It campaigns on socialist distribution policies and on ending the ability of private firms to provide publicly funded education, health, and elder care services."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/05/so-long-swedish-welfare-state/
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
301
Points
860
Hey, it isn't neo-nazi stuff if we CALL IT something else!  Pfffttttt...

All countries have their internal political nonsense.  Political parties, by their very nature, say absurdly stupid things in order to attract absurdly stupid voters.  This exists on both the right and left, in almost every country.



Militarily though?  You have to hand it to them.  For a country of their size, they certainly have created a robust arms industry & capable military. 
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
301
Points
860
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsDOIqTZ9Y


A video from our very own, Mr. Matsimus.

Honestly lots of really good points made that I either hadn't thought of, or had kind of forgotten about.  Figured some of you may enjoy  :nod:
 

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
77
Points
360
It would be nice to see us hop on the US Army's SHORAD-IM program and get a LAV-mounted Air Defence system.

The system also opens up some other interesting possibilities.  The turret for the SHORAD-IM is the Moog Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons Platform (RIwP) which has common base system elements and a range of reconfigurable weapon options.  The spec sheet (https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/Defense_Literature/RIwP_datasheet.pdf) says it's light enough to be mounted on tactical vehicles and there are numerous pictures showing it installed on Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.

I'm wondering if the same turret as the SHORAD-IM could be mounted on a TAPV to provide a Reserve AD platform with weapon commonality with the Reg Force LAV-based units.

Moog/Leonardo also shows a dual-TOW missile launcher as one of the weapon configuration options.  We could possibly use the same RWS as the SHORAD-IM but swap out the quad Stinger launcher for a dual TOW launcher as an anti-armour vehicle (2 x Hellfire and 2 x TOW).  It could be mounted on a LAV for the Reg Force armoured regiments and possibly on a TAPV for the Reserves.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
430
The US Army is working a a variety of systems, this one "may" be related to a current air to air missile system (Peregine), and provides coverage out to 25km. The article has a few other interesting snippets, including the purchase of a ground launched version of the Navy SM-6 missile, although that is supposedly for use as a surface to surface missile. However the SM-6 was designed as a surface to air missile, so there is the possibility of secondary use as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37532/army-offers-glimpse-of-new-low-cost-surface-to-air-missile?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
262
Points
910
Thucydides said:
The US Army is working a a variety of systems, this one "may" be related to a current air to air missile system (Peregine), and provides coverage out to 25km. The article has a few other interesting snippets, including the purchase of a ground launched version of the Navy SM-6 missile, although that is supposedly for use as a surface to surface missile. However the SM-6 was designed as a surface to air missile, so there is the possibility of secondary use as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37532/army-offers-glimpse-of-new-low-cost-surface-to-air-missile?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation

The SM-6 is a rather large missile, vehicle mounted i could see something like the ADATS on a LAV 6 or even a cheap launcher on a truck. Cost is the issue as its several million a unit, a block buy would sink a lot of money really fast in our budget and love fire wouldn't be cheap.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
GR66 said:
It would be nice to see us hop on the US Army's SHORAD-IM program and get a LAV-mounted Air Defence system.

The system also opens up some other interesting possibilities.  The turret for the SHORAD-IM is the Moog Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons Platform (RIwP) which has common base system elements and a range of reconfigurable weapon options.  The spec sheet (https://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/Defense_Literature/RIwP_datasheet.pdf) says it's light enough to be mounted on tactical vehicles and there are numerous pictures showing it installed on Joint Light Tactical Vehicles.

I'm wondering if the same turret as the SHORAD-IM could be mounted on a TAPV to provide a Reserve AD platform with weapon commonality with the Reg Force LAV-based units.

Moog/Leonardo also shows a dual-TOW missile launcher as one of the weapon configuration options.  We could possibly use the same RWS as the SHORAD-IM but swap out the quad Stinger launcher for a dual TOW launcher as an anti-armour vehicle (2 x Hellfire and 2 x TOW).  It could be mounted on a LAV for the Reg Force armoured regiments and possibly on a TAPV for the Reserves.

Do you think that config provides enough range given what we've seen in Libya and then Armenia with the Turkish Baktayar (sp?)?

Based on my limited knowledge that system wouldn't give you the required range to protect our troops.

To throw another alternative, given we are sourcing them for the frigates, why not order pre-existing CAMM components("Land Ceptor?") and mount onto CF trucks?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21139/british-armys-new-land-ceptor-sam-system-blasts-its-first-aerial-target
 
Top