All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[Colin Parkinson]

sorry when I said "parceled out" I did mean "attached"

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

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.

particularly a "fire and forget" system like the stinger.... The RCAF wasn't comfortable with an AD MBdr/Sgt firing a guided missile that could be taken off target, so I can only imagine the reaction to giving infantry a whole bunch of weapons that can't be taken off target.

The fire and forget, in case anyone is wondering, basically rules out the stinger as anything but a stop gap measure.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But the RCAF is fine with us having no AD at all?

 

[NavyShooter]

Well, as I was trying to say, within the realm of the possible, procuring a medium or long range air defense system will be 5, or more likely 10 years down the road from the time someone decides we need it.

Options are to go without and trust that we'll have sufficient fighter plane type air cover, or get some sort of stop-gap.

I'm suggesting the stop-gap.

Is my suggested distribution of one per LAV going to work?  I'm guessing not based on the negative responses to that.  So, let's concentrate the with some AD gunners, give them some vehicles to work from and deploy them as necessary to support as a stop-gap tied into the AD plans.  Then we at least have *something*

Right now we arguably have less integral AA Defense than our troops had during WWII, because at least back then most vehicles had a .50 Cal for AA Defence....we don't even have .50's on vehicles anymore.

 

[NavyShooter]

For those with DIN access, there is an entry in the CID, number C.001420 that's worth a look.

 

[dapaterson]

For those with DIN access, there is an entry in the CID, number C.001420 that's worth a look.

Last annual SRB was well over a decade ago, so I'm thinking this project is not particularly active.

 

[NavyShooter]

Um, I'll double check but there's some documents from late 2016 in there, so it's not that far on the back burner.  One of the notes discusses Latvia.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

That was a temporary exception that proves the rule. In any case, the Ab AD Tp weapons (Javelin) were still commanded and controlled within the ADA structure, if push came to shove in a conflict. I was once pretty familiar with the problem....

 

[suffolkowner]

where do these fit in?

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/07/29/canada-acquires-israeli-radar-system/

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Um, I'll double check but there's some documents from late 2016 in there, so it's not that far on the back burner.  One of the notes discusses Latvia.

There's a current UOR for low level GBAD

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

where do these fit in?

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2015/07/29/canada-acquires-israeli-radar-system/

The radar is a key component of the future GBAD. Basically, an IADS has 3 components: sensors, shooter, and C2. With that, canada has 2 of 3, with the 2 most complicated portions covered

 

[suffolkowner]

The radar is a key component of the future GBAD. Basically, an IADS has 3 components: sensors, shooter, and C2. With that, canada has 2 of 3, with the 2 most complicated portions covered

Thanks it just seems strange as a stand alone purchase

 

[Underway]

Thanks it just seems strange as a stand alone purchase

It seems like these radar systems are designed to detect enemy munitions as well.  If it works as advertised you get to early warn troops to get under cover, pinpoint more accurately where the enemy artillery is coming from and then take appropriate action to deal with it.  No GBAD shooting parts necessary to be useful at least in this case.

 

[Petard]

There's a current UOR for low level GBAD

Keeping in mind the U in UOR stands for unforecasted, not urgent, it says a lot

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It seems like these radar systems are designed to detect enemy munitions as well.  If it works as advertised you get to early warn troops to get under cover, pinpoint more accurately where the enemy artillery is coming from and then take appropriate action to deal with it.  No GBAD shooting parts necessary to be useful at least in this case.

That's very true. The radars are Multi-mission radars designed to fit into the STA and AD streams (why they are residing in 4 Arty Regiment (GS)). A C-RAM system has a detection, warning, and engagement element, so the radar works both to link in a warning and detection element for C-RAM as well as to provide a low level air picture for promulgation to the Common Air Picture through Link 16.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Keeping in mind the U in UOR stands for unforecasted, not urgent, it says a lot

Indeed. When we were first presented "artillery transformation" we quipped how divesting all GBAD functions showed poor strategic understanding within the Corps... it seems to be proven founded.

 

[Petard]

SHORAD training stepping up in US now, seems they too let the act capability of GBAD (as Gen Leslie once described it) to "whither on the vine"

http://swoknews.com/local/stinger-school-emerges-army-priority-sill

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Might be good to pipe some of our own through their school.

 

[Fabius]

SHORAD training stepping up in US now, seems they too let the act capability of GBAD (as Gen Leslie once described it) to "whither on the vine"

http://swoknews.com/local/stinger-school-emerges-army-priority-sill

Very interesting that they are doing what seems to me to be the exact same thing suggested earlier in this thread for Canada, aka arming infantry with MANPADs.  When this idea was raised earlier there were a host of reasons brought forward why that was not ideal but also unacceptable from an AD perspective.  Do those reasons hold true for just us and don't apply to the US? It looks to me like the US has decided that the risk with arming infantry MOSs within their  IBCTs with MANPADS is acceptable (no idea what mitigation they may employ), and that their need to provide some air defence capability NOW based on the threat, trumps spending time working out the perfect solution.

Thoughts?

 

[NavyShooter]

Very interesting that they are doing what seems to me to be the exact same thing suggested earlier in this thread for Canada, aka arming infantry with MANPADs.  When this idea was raised earlier there were a host of reasons brought forward why that was not ideal but also unacceptable from an AD perspective.  Do those reasons hold true for just us and don't apply to the US? It looks to me like the US has decided that the risk with arming infantry MOSs within their  IBCTs with MANPADS is acceptable (no idea what mitigation they may employ), and that their need to provide some air defence capability NOW based on the threat, trumps spending time working out the perfect solution.

Thoughts?

Wait....someone else is arming their infantry with MANPADS....?  Who said that before?