• 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)

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
That all looks very expensive, particularly at the rate of fire of the smaller autocannons. If I recall correctly, most of the current auto cannons cannot flick a switch to change ammunition type in the feed tray, it`s possible that they won't have it loaded when needed or one vehicle in a Troop would be loaded with it and dedicated to AD overwatch.
The Bofors 57mm cannon used on the ships have a very effective round and ROF to defeat antiship missiles and would likley make a good SPAAG. 57mm gives you a lot more room for fuze, shrapnel and bursting charge. 57mm Naval Gun System. Although this gun is popular with Navies, it has yet to make it's way into the ground role.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
97
Points
280
That all looks very expensive, particularly at the rate of fire of the smaller autocannons. If I recall correctly, most of the current auto cannons cannot flick a switch to change ammunition type in the feed tray, it`s possible that they won't have it loaded when needed or one vehicle in a Troop would be loaded with it and dedicated to AD overwatch.
The Bofors 57mm cannon used on the ships have a very effective round and ROF to defeat antiship missiles and would likley make a good SPAAG. 57mm gives you a lot more room for fuze, shrapnel and bursting charge. 57mm Naval Gun System. Although this gun is popular with Navies, it has yet to make it's way into the ground role.

The article seemed to suggest that switching between ammunition types was commonplace. Can we do this with our M242 Bushmaster?

The Bofors 57mm does seem like a natural fit, but maybe too much for LAV

"The heaviest weapon will be a Bofors medium-calibre 57mm Mk 110 Mod 0 gun which is already in service with the US and several other navies. It can deliver up to 4 rounds per second and has a range of about 17km. The whole system, including 1,000 rounds weighs around 14 tonnes. This is a very different weapon to the much heavier 114mm (4.5”) Mk 8 that delivers a single shell every 2 seconds and has equipped the majority of RN frigates since the 1970s."


but what about it's little brother, the 40mm?

"The Type 31 will not be fitted with 20mm Phalanx CIWS but instead will mount two Bofors 40mm Mk 4 guns. These lightweight 2.3-tonne, non-deck penetrating mounts can deliver 5 rounds per second out to about 12.5km and are designed to respond rapidly at a wide range of elevations. By delivering heavier shells further away from the ship the Mk 4 is superior to Phalanx in some ways. They provide defence against air and missile attack but use the same sophisticated 3P type ammunition as the 57mm so can quickly change to engage small boat or UAV threats. 100 rounds are held in the gun ready to fire with the ability to shift between different types of ammunition."

above quotes from

of course integration of the above choices would probably be more work and money versus the IM-SHORAD. I just wondered about the choice of the 30mm over the 25mm already in service
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,445
Points
1,040
A slight tilt on calibres, I'm a fan of the Rheinmetal NBS Mantis/Millenium systems which are in 35 mm. It's not those extra five or ten millimetres but the fragmenting AHEAD ammunition with an automated fuze setter that works well as an anti-missile system. As an aside there is also a range of anti-armour projectile which will take out pretty much any APC/IFV in the inventory.

A bit much for most drones but I'm sure that that can be adapted by a fire control system and/or an accompanying smaller calibre side arm.

 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
574
Points
890
A slight tilt on calibres, I'm a fan of the Rheinmetal NBS Mantis/Millenium systems which are in 35 mm. It's not those extra five or ten millimetres but the fragmenting AHEAD ammunition with an automated fuze setter that works well as an anti-missile system. As an aside there is also a range of anti-armour projectile which will take out pretty much any APC/IFV in the inventory.

A bit much for most drones but I'm sure that that can be adapted by a fire control system and/or an accompanying smaller calibre side arm.

For a 35mm gun with various types of ammo available, that thing is one unbelievably nasty little gun. When it first elevated to engage an air target, I wasn't expecting it to just unleash hell like that. Looks like a great weapon to slave to a C-RAM radar over the traditional 20mm Phalanx.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
431
Points
960

The Ruskies seemed to think that the 57mm wasn't too big, though they used a T-54 tank chassis for theirs. Though, the ZSU-23 seems to have been their more long-standing solution.

Note, the 1000 rounds of 57mm ammo puts us on somewhat uneven terms of discussion. Yup, a naval mount having 1000 rounds (HMC Ships carry about 1800) is reasonable...the thing is at 19 pounds per cartridge, the 14 tons is mostly ammunition weight. If you took just the 120 rounds that normally fill the turret, you'd have a total system weight of 5.6 Tons. Putting another 120 rounds to double the basic load would add just over another ton.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
532
Points
1,060
A slight tilt on calibres, I'm a fan of the Rheinmetal NBS Mantis/Millenium systems which are in 35 mm. It's not those extra five or ten millimetres but the fragmenting AHEAD ammunition with an automated fuze setter that works well as an anti-missile system. As an aside there is also a range of anti-armour projectile which will take out pretty much any APC/IFV in the inventory.

A bit much for most drones but I'm sure that that can be adapted by a fire control system and/or an accompanying smaller calibre side arm.



Back to the future FJAG?






Both the Dutch and the Danes opted for a 35mm cannon (admittedly a Bushmaster instead of an Oerlikon) on their CV-90s.

Rheinmetall-Oerlikon has a lot of history on the short game.

Kongsberg's NASAM for Area Defence?

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
532
Points
1,060
And while we are at it



Please tell me that the RCA GBAD/LRPFs team is talking to the RCN CSC team.

Is there any reason they can't use the same suite of missiles, cannons, and fire control? Sensors might need a bit of tweaking - maybe
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
532
Points
1,060
The role of Artificial Intelligence in enhancing Boyd's OODA loop - Observing, Orienting to Plan, Highlighting Threats and Courses of Action. Decide and Act are left in human hands. Although one decision could be "Weapons Free".


Physical capabilities


EW risks to the strategy.



How would these work alongside the LRHVM "Theatre"?

Given these standards I suggest that Canada (5514 km East-West by 4634 km North-South on land - add 400 km EW for EEZ and 200 km NS) is a Theatre and the appropriate defence capability is SM6/Tomahawk/LRHW.

I further suggest that the Theatre support a single Corps with a single Division.
That the Theatre be an entirely domestic command.
That the Corps be an Allied Corps (we are wealthy and tech savvy but short on bodies - we should be prepared to support our allies in depth - 1st Canadian Army as model)
That the Division be a permanent reaction force tasked to the defence of Canada but capable of hiving off Brigades, Battle Groups and Combat Teams to support allies.

Special Forces to work with Long Range Strike (Arty, Rotary and Air - manned and unmanned)

Holding ground with live infanteers - the last political move.


And Russian (and Chinese) Sixth Generation Warfare?

 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,445
Points
1,040

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
"recommending going to commercial game controllers" Likely they trained on Call of Duty and other video games, not a huge leap to the real world as far as eye and hand coordination goes. The US has the same advantage with tech savy recruits, that they did with automotive savy recruits in WWII.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
574
Points
890
It would be interesting to know if the gunners it took "days" to train were already AD gunners and if so, which weapon specialty and whether Active Army or ARNG.

🍻
I’d be curious also, but in this case I don’t know if it would really matter.

I would imagine it is more a matter of training the soldiers on how to operate a user-friendly system, than training them on how a complex C2 network would work in regards to air defence, integration of other AD assets at different levels, etc. It is a short ranged system after all.

It sounds like the radar and sensors detect the threat, and automatically point the laser in the direction of the contact. The soldiers then decide whether to lock & track the contact, and whether to engage.

Pushing a few buttons to switch between IR, thermal, regular optics, how to zoom in and out, how to lock and track the contact, and which button to push to fire phasers.



(I’ve made some assumptions about the system, which are baseless as I obviously have no experience with it. But I do remember how simple and user friendly the surveillance suite was on the Coyote, which really boiled down to changing from night vision to thermal, zooming in and out, and rotating the cameras.

Systems have only become more user friendly since then, and that wasn’t a hard system to become decently proficient on.)
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,445
Points
1,040
I’d be curious also, but in this case I don’t know if it would really matter.
...
Systems have only become more user friendly since then, and that wasn’t a hard system to become decently proficient on.)
I always look at these things from life cycle cost and on a PY basis.

The regular force artillery has been heavily hit by PY issues. The reason it is down to a handful of guns and no air defence comes muchly from having to shift PYs to STA/ASCC and OP/FSCC batteries during Afghanistan. Quite frankly it can't be pared down anymore to re-man air defence without giving something else up - and there's nothing left to give up.

Similarly weapon acquisition costs are now heavily influenced by life cycle costs which depend very much on the service life of the system and the annual cost for crews and ammo - crew costs are a big factor especially for a system like this where ammunition costs do not seem to be an issue.

Since AD is one of those specialties which sees very little utility in peacetime the curmudgeons which make decisions on allocating funds and PYs would be loath to devote much of either for such a system.

If, on the other hand, much of the manning could come from reservists, and the systems remain on stand-by for much of their life cycle, acquisition of a reasonable number of systems is much more likely as overall costs are significantly lower.

This is also why I favour more modern SP systems because much of the gunline can be converted to fewer and less expensive reservists.

🍻
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
225
Points
710
Since AD is one of those specialties which sees very little utility in peacetime the curmudgeons which make decisions on allocating funds and PYs would be loath to devote much of either for such a system.
I think that anyone looking at any recent conflicts should realize that AD will see very significant utility in almost all future operations.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,445
Points
1,040
I think that anyone looking at any recent conflicts should realize that AD will see very significant utility in almost all future operations.
You'd think so wouldn't you.

My cynicism, however, hasn't abated.

🍻
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
602
Points
940
I think that anyone looking at any recent conflicts should realize that AD will see very significant utility in almost all future operations.
laser weapons likely in the future will be able to track and engage faster then conventional munitions, especially drones. With relatively no defense created yet
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
532
Points
1,060
London Olympics 2012


1629434242627.png1629434280532.png


Kananaskis G8 2002

1629434431202.png


From Iron Dome to C-RAM it seems to me Air Defence is an asset with a great degree of utility. If for no other reason than it has Defence in its name.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
574
Points
890
I always look at these things from life cycle cost and on a PY basis.

The regular force artillery has been heavily hit by PY issues. The reason it is down to a handful of guns and no air defence comes muchly from having to shift PYs to STA/ASCC and OP/FSCC batteries during Afghanistan. Quite frankly it can't be pared down anymore to re-man air defence without giving something else up - and there's nothing left to give up.

Similarly weapon acquisition costs are now heavily influenced by life cycle costs which depend very much on the service life of the system and the annual cost for crews and ammo - crew costs are a big factor especially for a system like this where ammunition costs do not seem to be an issue.

Since AD is one of those specialties which sees very little utility in peacetime the curmudgeons which make decisions on allocating funds and PYs would be loath to devote much of either for such a system.

If, on the other hand, much of the manning could come from reservists, and the systems remain on stand-by for much of their life cycle, acquisition of a reasonable number of systems is much more likely as overall costs are significantly lower.

This is also why I favour more modern SP systems because much of the gunline can be converted to fewer and less expensive reservists.

🍻
I totally agree with you. Life cycle costs and PY availability are at least just as important (one can argue they are MORE important) as the acquisition costs. If the system is absurdly expensive to operate, or needs regular costly maintenance because it is 'fragile' - those things need to be thoroughly considered before the system is acquired. And obviously, we need PYs available to operate whatever system is acquired.

If something like this was mounted on a LAV 6, I imagine the life cycle costs would be fairly low. Not a lot of moving parts, no violent explosions happening inside the system being funneled through a barrel, subsequent recoil, wear & tear, etc. Perhaps some hydraulic motors for turret rotation, and some high-tech sci-fi things that make a laser powerful enough and focused enough it is weaponized. (Which now that I write that out, are probably more expensive than I realize.)


Just some random thoughts/questions:

- In regards to PYs, is it possible to have some of the gunners/personnel in the RCA able to operate both? Do we need personnel exclusively trained on the M777, and others exclusively trained on this system if it is user-friendly enough? Depending on the deployment, PYs that are trained on the M777 could operate this kind of system if their M777s aren't deployed.
 
Top