All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[Kirkhill]

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

And I think that is where the NASAMS system comes into play

NASAMS is renowned for its
use of the Raytheon AMRAAM missile,
but is furthermore operational with
command and control of a range of guns
and short and medium range missiles,
such as e.g. L-70 guns, RBS 70 and HAWK.
It has also proven interoperability with
directed-energy weapons (DEWs) and
longer range systems, such as Patriot.
A total of eleven nations have acquired
the KONGSBERG command and control
solution adapted to their requirements.
The Syste m
A standard NASAMS unit has a modular
design comprising a command post FDC,
an active 3D radar AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel,
a passive electro-optic and infra-red
sensor and a number of missile canister
launchers with AMRAAM missiles.
Normally, four NASAMS units are
netted in a battalion network.
The system is tied together with a
uniquely designed ”hard-real-time”
communication network to ensure
minimum latency over large distances
for maximum performance of the
AMRAAM missile.
This modular design permits mission
oriented task force organization of
NASAMS, allowing the operators to
maximize the effect of the components
and tailor the system to the task

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/nasams/

Click on the NASAMS - Air Defence System link embedded in the link above.

It is a distributed modular system that links dispersed gun and missile modules over a wide area.

Defends a large geographical area

The radar and launcher elements can be
deployed over a large area separated by
up to 25 kilometres, providing an extended
coverage with few elements.

Dispersed elements increase its survivability against
enemy air and ground attacks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile - the counter to a high tech air defence network:

A bunch of low cost spoofers

http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-navy-locust-launcher-fire-drones-2017-4

Edited to add the correct link.

 

[a_majoor]

C-RAM based on CIWS is most certainly a "fixed" application, but I seem to recall the ADATS/SKYSWEEPER combo was supposed to be capable of limited C-RAM in the 1980's (and a 35mm cannon firing AHEAD ammunition would spoil anyone's day).

So I am thinking Avenger or Blazer type vehicles with highly accurate short range sensors could be distributed across the AO to deal with that threat. The same vehicles could also be purchased and distributed to GBAD units and linked to different sensors and an integrated AA network to deal with other threats (maybe changing out the missiles in the missile pod for longer range weapons, or having different missiles in each pod to get around enemy countermeasures, much like the Israeli "Spider" system has 4 radar guided missiles and 4 IR guided missiles).

 

[Underway]

Air defence is definitely is not an infantry specialization.  The equipment, doctrine, and use are very specialized and need to operate independently to function properly like armour or artillery do. 

If the army is getting back into AD then they need to put it as an artillery asset and deploy it properly.  IIRC (and I'm sure someone here with more experience can attest) AD troops were usually deployed way out from the main effort in the battlespace.  The ADAT's were deployed far from the armour and infantry (*edit: from a reference online 6 ADATS up to 20km from each other) in order to interdict air attack before they got into MANPADS range of those assets.  Then inside that outer defence square were the MANPADS positions, then inside that was the  Skyguard 35mm.  Classic layered defence system.  All of these were integrated into their own comms net, command and control system, sensor etc...

So if you are going to do it within the old doctrinal structure, I think at a minimum an ADAT's type system with an addition of MANPADS position troops and integrated Link 16.  If the doctrine needs to be different then maybe an ADAT's type system is fine.

The C-RAM is basically the Skyguard, which is really only useful for very close range stuff (as Thucydides pointed out).  If bullets are important you could do an LAV-AD system like the USMC instead which combines vehicle launched MANPADS and a 20mm Gatling "Equalizer" gun, which has the same ammo as the F-35 (and F-18 IIRC) for drone shooting.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Underway, the infantry can and have used Manpads and HMG’s to ward off attacks on themselves. These would be a Coy asset with the CO determining the best location and whether they use their HMG’s in ground defense or air. So the Manpad detachment would get their comms from the Coy HQ who would have to coordinate any ceasefires for friendly attacking aircraft in the sector. But you are correct that the vehicle borne system are rightly an artillery system and would be tied into a network (hopefully).

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it disconcerting to be watching missiles etc incoming and having no way to counter them beyond picking up a handset and....

"Operator? Can you put me through to the nearest Air Defence Detachment?..... Yes.  I'll hold."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think it disconcerting to be watching missiles etc incoming and having no way to counter them beyond picking up a handset and....

"Operator? Can you put me through to the nearest Air Defence Detachment?..... Yes.  I'll hold."

Mind you troops have had to contend with wayward bombs and bullets with no handset to use...... 

 

[Underway]

Underway, the infantry can and have used Manpads and HMG’s to ward off attacks on themselves. These would be a Coy asset with the CO determining the best location and whether they use their HMG’s in ground defense or air. So the Manpad detachment would get their comms from the Coy HQ who would have to coordinate any ceasefires for friendly attacking aircraft in the sector. But you are correct that the vehicle borne system are rightly an artillery system and would be tied into a network (hopefully).

That makes some sense as an individual Coy asset for point defence, really no different then elevating the LAV turret and blasting away.  But what I was referring too was a specific MANPADs section that is detached specifically for Battle Group air defence.  No reason you can't do both, especially as the field artillery and armour would probably appreciate the assist.

AD against drones seems to be a big problem as well.  I would expect that the best way to deal with most civi spec drones is EW, with either a jam, fry or take over control possibility as their electronics are not hardened.  Milspec drones might still be able to be jammed or fried.  Detecting them quickly and then dealing with them seems to be a hard part.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With all the EW stuff that is going to be going on in the near future, there may be some wisdom in a having a gun and a good optical sight as part of the plan. Low flying attack aircraft woulds still be at risk from it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

C-RAM based on CIWS is most certainly a "fixed" application, but I seem to recall the ADATS/SKYSWEEPER combo was supposed to be capable of limited C-RAM in the 1980's (and a 35mm cannon firing AHEAD ammunition would spoil anyone's day).

So I am thinking Avenger or Blazer type vehicles with highly accurate short range sensors could be distributed across the AO to deal with that threat. The same vehicles could also be purchased and distributed to GBAD units and linked to different sensors and an integrated AA network to deal with other threats (maybe changing out the missiles in the missile pod for longer range weapons, or having different missiles in each pod to get around enemy countermeasures, much like the Israeli "Spider" system has 4 radar guided missiles and 4 IR guided missiles).

ADATS was never designed for a  C-RAM capability though it had the capacity to engage Cruise missiles. The Gun/Skyguard (not skysweeper) was designed with some C-RAM in mind, but this was to be more of a vital point defence against larger munitions vice artillery and mortar rounds. The US trialled the Gun/Skyguard in Gagetown in the summer of 2006 for that purpose and never went forward, choosing to use the CIWS instead as it was deemed more capable at that time.

If you're talking about C-RAM than an avenger has zero capability as the missile has to be actively locked onto the target by the gunner and isn't radar guided. Further, the stinger missile isn't a feasible C-RAM weapon as it has a delayed impact fuze, meaning it would have to contact the incoming round. The system was designed to engage low level aviation and air, not missiles or other munitions.

Finally, "Swapping out" the missile is easier said than done as it would need to have the same guidance and control systems within the vehicle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

With all the EW stuff that is going to be going on in the near future, there may be some wisdom in a having a gun and a good optical sight as part of the plan. Low flying attack aircraft woulds still be at risk from it.

You mean like the 'Gimpy on a Stick' we used to practice with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teDnN9OJzlg

These were fun to shoot.... especially the gi-huge ammo allocation that cam along with the LLAD package, seen here in Hongers...

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Air defence is definitely is not an infantry specialization.  The equipment, doctrine, and use are very specialized and need to operate independently to function properly like armour or artillery do. 

If the army is getting back into AD then they need to put it as an artillery asset and deploy it properly.  IIRC (and I'm sure someone here with more experience can attest) AD troops were usually deployed way out from the main effort in the battlespace.  The ADAT's were deployed far from the armour and infantry (*edit: from a reference online 6 ADATS up to 20km from each other) in order to interdict air attack before they got into MANPADS range of those assets.  Then inside that outer defence square were the MANPADS positions, then inside that was the  Skyguard 35mm.  Classic layered defence system.  All of these were integrated into their own comms net, command and control system, sensor etc...

So if you are going to do it within the old doctrinal structure, I think at a minimum an ADAT's type system with an addition of MANPADS position troops and integrated Link 16.  If the doctrine needs to be different then maybe an ADAT's type system is fine.

The C-RAM is basically the Skyguard, which is really only useful for very close range stuff (as Thucydides pointed out).  If bullets are important you could do an LAV-AD system like the USMC instead which combines vehicle launched MANPADS and a 20mm Gatling "Equalizer" gun, which has the same ammo as the F-35 (and F-18 IIRC) for drone shooting.

an Intergrated Air Defence System (IADS) is a "system of systems" designed to counter a wide range of air threats based on which systems are best suited to engage said threats. From a GBAD perspective, GBAD was not intended to be the primary defensive Counter Air (DCA) capability- fighters were. So, for GBAD the primary DCA tasks going forward would be counter UAS, counter Aviation, counter munitions, and then SOME counter fast air/strike. Depending on what the doctrinal model decided going forward is will determine what system is needed. For example, if GBAD is to focus on a airfield or point defence (FOB say) capability than it would be focussed on C-RAM gun skyshield type capability with a back up missile capability to defend against UAS (if needed) or if there was an aviation or fast air threat to said vital point. If it is to be deployed to support manoeuvre, than you need something more mobile to guard against aviation and UAS. So, it's not as easy as throwing out systems and hoping that they meet the intent. Realistically, for there to be a successful Canadian IADS we need integration with air and navy sensors (Link 16/Link 11) and with air and army shooters and sensors. We would also require potentially multiple systems to counter the plethora of threats. For example, if we were to procure a C-RAM system with a CIWS shooter than we would have no capability to engage anything other than munitions.

As for the ADATS... it didn't always deploy far from infantry or armour, nor did it have to. GBAD has 4 tactical tasks- Direct Support, General Support, Reinforcing, or General Support Reinforcing. If the ADATS were deployed in a DS role than they were given their AD priorities from the supported commander, so could be tasked to defend a defensive position, AA, etc. If they were GS, they were given priorities by the AD commander based on the Area Air Defence Plan. If they were reinforcing, they were given their priorities and tasks by the reinforced AD commander, and if they were GSR they were given priorities and tasks by the AD commander with a secondary task to reinforce the other AD units. To whit- generally, javelins were DS to manoeuvre units or they were given to the ADATS unit as reinforcing to cover gaps in the coverage. As a young ADATS Tp Comd I can remember being co-located with other arms and doing coord with the local commander. Finally, even if we were tasked OPCON to a manoeuvre unit with a GS task, we would/could find ourselves occupying or taking the same ground as other arms.

 

[NavyShooter]

A System of Systems is what we *SHOULD* be deploying.

Long range SAMs (Patriot?) + Mid-range SAM/Gun + Short-range Point-defense + C-RAM Capable system for fixed positions/bases, all tied together with Link for an integrated picture.

Right now, we have none of that.

So, let's look at the art of the possible.

Procurement of a new SAM system is a long process, unless we're in a war and sole-source it, or the procurement system gets stood on its head.  So, that knocks out the LR and MR options...along with the integrated system capability.

We're left with short-range point defense.

Options there would be the HMMV based AA system, or buying a bunch of Stingers and giving them out to the troops.

I don't think we're going to buy a HMMV based system....again with the procurement.

Let's consider the TOWs that are coming into the stream....a man-portable AT missile system that seems pretty easy to use.

Suppose we brought some Stingers in by simply mis-spelling AT as AA?  I know the Ammo Techs would probably flip when they opened the shipping crates, but I think in terms of the "art of the possible" looking at the relatively recent sourcing of TOWs could be applied fairly simply to Stingers.

The minimal infrastructure required to bring 'just a missile' into our supply stream would be much easier than any of the other systems....and while it is also the least capable of the systems of systems, it's also the one that'd get into the troops hands the fastest.

My suggestion:  Buy a few hundred Stingers, deploy one per LAV, anytime the troops park and setup, one LAV gets designated as the AA Guard and they unpack their Stinger. 

Follow that with the system of systems concept, aiming for a medium range system with Link....something that can talk to our F-35's that we'll get at around the same time.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

A System of Systems is what we *SHOULD* be deploying.

Long range SAMs (Patriot?) + Mid-range SAM/Gun + Short-range Point-defense + C-RAM Capable system for fixed positions/bases, all tied together with Link for an integrated picture.

Right now, we have none of that.

So, let's look at the art of the possible.

Procurement of a new SAM system is a long process, unless we're in a war and sole-source it, or the procurement system gets stood on its head.  So, that knocks out the LR and MR options...along with the integrated system capability.

We're left with short-range point defense.

Options there would be the HMMV based AA system, or buying a bunch of Stingers and giving them out to the troops.

I don't think we're going to buy a HMMV based system....again with the procurement.

Let's consider the TOWs that are coming into the stream....a man-portable AT missile system that seems pretty easy to use.

Suppose we brought some Stingers in by simply mis-spelling AT as AA?  I know the Ammo Techs would probably flip when they opened the shipping crates, but I think in terms of the "art of the possible" looking at the relatively recent sourcing of TOWs could be applied fairly simply to Stingers.

The minimal infrastructure required to bring 'just a missile' into our supply stream would be much easier than any of the other systems....and while it is also the least capable of the systems of systems, it's also the one that'd get into the troops hands the fastest.

My suggestion:  Buy a few hundred Stingers, deploy one per LAV, anytime the troops park and setup, one LAV gets designated as the AA Guard and they unpack their Stinger. 

Follow that with the system of systems concept, aiming for a medium range system with Link....something that can talk to our F-35's that we'll get at around the same time.

Stingers have little value in an anti-UAS role due to the target acquisition capability,  particularly anythung below TUAV. As such it negates the 2 largest GBAD threats today - munitions and UAS. It would provide a counter aviation capability but that's about it. So I would suggest Stingers provide a very limited capability and certainly nothing long term.

Also keeping "1 per LAV" isn't a good solution and ad weapons need to be centralized to allow for proper weapon use.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Stingers have little value in an anti-UAS role due to the target acquisition capability,  particularly anythung below TUAV. As such it negates the 2 largest GBAD threats today - munitions and UAS. It would provide a counter aviation capability but that's about it. So I would suggest Stingers provide a very limited capability and certainly nothing long term.

Also keeping "1 per LAV" isn't a good solution and ad weapons need to be centralized to allow for proper weapon use.

And it's always better to use captured SA-7s against their own aircraft too...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hate to burst all your bubbles, but NATO won't let us anywhere near a battlefield if Canada were to issue shoulder launched SAMs on an ad hoc basis, without them existing within a proper and formal AD Command and Control system.

The risk of "blue on blue" is just too great.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Blowpipes teams were a detachment from the Artillery as I recall in a 5/4 ton fitted with spare missile storage racks. They were parceled out to support other arms as required. So a Coy Hq, Tank Squadron or Artillery Battery Commander and with the detachment commanders advice, would choose the best spot to defend the host unit from attack and the host unit responsible for the the ground defense of the detachment. The location of the detachment and defensive arcs would be passed on up to HQ who would pass that information to the Officer responsible for tasking aviation assets. I am assuming it would be their job to advise back down to the AD detachments of a airstrike in an area defended by our ADA and which routes in and out they will fly, so as to avoid being shot at? 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Not quite.

The Cdn Blowpipe and Javelin Dets were never "parcelled out" to anyone. They existed within their Troop structure and were always under the command of and within a qualified AD C2 hierarchy. It is true though, that they often shared terrain with other arms units, usually to directly protect them from air attack. The easiest piece in AD is firing the weapon. The hardest piece is the C2 structure and the understanding of the airpace control plan/SPINs/etc that goes with it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Not quite. The Cdn Blowpipe and Javelin Dets were never "parcelled out" to anyone. They existed within their Troop structure and were always under the command of and within a qualified AD C2 hierarchy. It is true though, that they often shared terrain with other arms units, usually to directly protect them from air attack. The easiest piece in AD is firing the weapon. The hardest piece is the C2 structure and the understanding of the airpace control plan/SPINs/etc that goes with it.

Excellent post! That's why we maintained the ASCC (GBAD C2). Shooting is easy, coordinating is hard, particularly if you went into an EW environment where procedural coordination measures were the rule of the day... ASCMs and such. Having infantry have MANPADs in each LAV would mean that each LAV would also need a complete trace of the valid ASCMs and proper training on IFF procedures. Not feasible IMHO nor even something that should be considered, particularly as a secondary duty.

The Blowpipes teams were a detachment from the Artillery as I recall in a 5/4 ton fitted with spare missile storage racks. They were parceled out to support other arms as required. So a Coy Hq, Tank Squadron or Artillery Battery Commander and with the detachment commanders advice, would choose the best spot to defend the host unit from attack and the host unit responsible for the the ground defense of the detachment. The location of the detachment and defensive arcs would be passed on up to HQ who would pass that information to the Officer responsible for tasking aviation assets. I am assuming it would be their job to advise back down to the AD detachments of a airstrike in an area defended by our ADA and which routes in and out they will fly, so as to avoid being shot at? 

By parcelled out I assume that you mean they were attached Direct Support to a manoeuvre unit but remained with the GBAD C2 structure? The Role of the field BC in AD was basically a matter of convenience- the AD rep in a BG was a Tp Comd (lt or jr capt) while the field rep was a maj. Brigade AD rep was a major with a LCol Field rep, etc etc etc. So, as the AD pers was junior the field commander often "spoke for them" in O groups but were not directly involved in planning. Nor should they be.... they lack the expertise. When the Blowpipe troop was attached to an armour or infantry unit DS, the supported commander chose the AD priorities which tasks were derived from. That said, the AD officers job was to advise on what the priorities should be based on some form of CVR analysis (Criticality, vulnerability, recuperability or CVR-T at the higher levels, with the T being "threat"). So, same as field arty where the FOO can advise on a target and the commander can decide.

Finally, you are correct that they would pass up LOCSTAT and coverage but it was to the AD COMMANDER (and ASCC) not to aviation. This would then be amalgamated into a complete trace of all AD systems to create an ADA which would be promulgated to aviation and air users as an ACM. The ASCC then tracked ACMs and ADA units, changed WCS and AD warnings, etc based on higher threats or local observations.

 

[Old Sweat]

The only exception to the above was the AB AD Tp. When E Bty gave up the para role, the tp was transferred to the CAR and became 16 Pl in the Combat Support Commando. When the AB Regiment was disbanded, the members of the tp were posted to the AB Holding Unit and then went to the three total force AD units.