All Things Air Defence/AA (merged)

[daftandbarmy]

Looks like there are quite a few upgrades available to the venerable 40mm L70:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/sweden_swedish_military_army_light_heavy_weapons/l/70_l70_l-70_bofors_40mm_automatic_anti-aircraft_gun_air_defence_system_technical_data_sheet.html

 

[Lancaster]

Last August/2/2019, I wrote a letter to MP Harijan Sajjan about do we need
quote “Do we need a Canadian long-range missiles like the Patriot, in NATO
against potential Russian aggression  in the Baltic’s?" Mr. Sajjan did not respond
but his Defence Corporate Secretary- did respond. No details of  NATO missiles
plan but Latvia troop’s presence and ship's in area.
See below attached letter.

RE: Do we need a Canadian long-range missiles like the Patriot, in NATO against
potential Russian aggression  in the Baltic’s?
Date August/2/2019
To  Defence minister Honourable MP Harijan Sajjan,  [email protected]
CC  MP James Bezan,    [email protected]

To:  Defence minister Honourable MP Harijan Sajjan,

According to recent New York times article ”NATO Considers Missile Defense
Upgrade, Risking Further Tensions With Russia”, quote: ”...But the alliance is
considering new air and missile defenses, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
announced last week without revealing detail” reference #1. The Canadian
military does not have long-range missiles defense systems but we have Air
Defense Anti-tank system (ADATS), but is a “low-level air defense capability”
is that enough ?  reference #2. NATO countries like Germany, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania and Spain, and US. have Patriot systems but the systems
are not in Baltic countries see reference #3. Spain has a Patriot system,
and as a partner nation in Latvia reference #4. Do you think Canada should
depend on Spain for its protection of it troops ? Don’t you think Canada should
get its own Patriot system from potential Russian aggression in the Baltic’s?

  In 2017 Quote in defensenews.com, Baltic states push US on Patriot missile
defense deployment, Reference #5. In June /2019 "Lithuania needs more air
defense capabilities, President-elect Nauseda told NATO chief" and “Lithuania
has short-rangeair defense systems and is purchasing medium-range air
defense systems but cannot afford long-range missiles, like Patriot, capable
of downing aircraft and ballistic missiles.” reference #6.

  In Feb/2/2016. I sent my emailed letter to Honourable Stéphane Dion
former Foreign Minister but no response from him, and CC to you Defence
minister Honourable MP Harijan Sajjan of my concerns of Ukraine, Russia
conflict and defense of Baltic countries and Poland. Several months later on
July 9, 2016, quote from MP Harijan Sajjan , “Canada will send a battle
group of soldiers to Latvia by early 2017 as part of a NATO plan to counter
fears of Russian aggression in eastern Europe’’ Reference #7.

  In 2018 our Canadian battle groups moved into Latvia and in 2019
should be looking for a  long-range missiles defence system like Patriot, to
protect these Baltic countries. Other NATO countries and their battle groups
moved into Baltic countries. NATO involvement is hugely appreciated and
prevented a Russian aggression and World War 3. I am  retired
manufacturing designer and lived all my life in Toronto.  I would
appreciate a timely response .

A . K. Email:

Reference #1
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/world/europe/nato-nuclear-missile-defenses-russia.html
Reference #2, From  Canadian Defence Review 2009 February issue, ADATS article  page 16, “low-level air defence capability”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System
Reference #3
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
Reference #4
https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl_cooperation/spain/
Reference #5
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/05/26/baltic-states-push-us-on-patriot-missile-defense-deployment/
Reference #6
https://www.baltictimes.com/lithuania_needs_more_air_defense_capabilities__president-elect_nauseda_told_nato_chief/
Reference #7
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harjit-sajjan-nato-defence-spending-1.3671430

 

[FJAG]

Here we go again with that little Urban Legend.

The boffins used for air defence in Europe in the 70's did not come from Bonnie.

First of all, Bonnie had precious few of them (6 only). Her AA was mostly comprised of 3inch50 guns, not Bofors 40 mm. Second, she was still in service when the decision was made to give Europe AA and it was a surprise when her decommissioning was announced - so there was no plan to use such guns.

The Bofors for CF Europe came from the Navy stock, which was mostly made up of the old WWII corvettes and frigates stock, completed by the 19 guns from HMCS Magnificent.

If you want to "repeat" the legend, at least refer to Maggie. 

:surrender:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What we can do with the resources at hand is create a AD Troop, using Manpads and simulators (both indoor and portable) That allows you to practice all the field craft stuff and gets people used to the resource and creates the knowledge base. Start with a NATO ally training standard and adapt it. Start getting Commanders used to the resource and how to counter the threat and incorporate into the battle space. Lease the systems so we don't have to go through a painful and long procurement process.

 

[FJAG]

What we can do with the resources at hand is create a AD Troop, using Manpads and simulators (both indoor and portable) That allows you to practice all the field craft stuff and gets people used to the resource and creates the knowledge base. Start with a NATO ally training standard and adapt it. Start getting Commanders used to the resource and how to counter the threat and incorporate into the battle space. Lease the systems so we don't have to go through a painful and long procurement process.

I kind of agree except for the scope. I think we need a full regiment so that all the essential command and control elements are present. IMHO the regiment ought to be a relatively simple system such as the US Avenger. Until very recently US Army Avenger battalions were all allocated to the National Guard. With the recent revival of an interest in all things air defence, several Active Army Avenger battalions are being formed.

The Regiment could have a mixed Reg F/ResF RHQ with a fully equipped and Reg F manned Bty HQ and a Reg F platoon (troop) or two with the remaining batteries being Res F fully manned and trained but minimally equipped until funding is available. Typically, an Avenger battery (two platoons of six systems each plus two Sentinel radars) supports a brigade while a platoon supports a battalion/battle group.

That way you would be able to learn and exercise all the C&C aspects and deploy an element to support current battle group level deployments.

The last foreign purchase of Avenger systems I found was in Egypt for 25 firing systems plus associated equipment,etc for US$126 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_01x64.pdf

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/126m-in-avenger-air-defense-systems-for-egypt-0774/

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except, they create the command structure, promotes some people into, create staff positions, add a support section in NDHQ, in the schools and neglect to buy equipment and have no troops trained or training to use it in the field. Sticking to a troop level for now means they can use the existing resources and have a Captain/Lieutenant command the Troop and Major advising the Brigade of the AD assets and deployment. once you sorted out the structure, add a troop to each Reg force artillery unit, also select and tag one Reserve unit as well (Likely one co-located to a reg force unit and has sufficient strength.) 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Except, they create the command structure, promotes some people into, create staff positions, add a support section in NDHQ, in the schools and neglect to buy equipment and have no troops trained or training to use it in the field. Sticking to a troop level for now means they can use the existing resources and have a Captain/Lieutenant command the Troop and Major advising the Brigade of the AD assets and deployment. once you sorted out the structure, add a troop to each Reg force artillery unit, also select and tag one Reserve unit as well (Likely one co-located to a reg force unit and has sufficient strength.)

That did not work awesome in the 1980s. The RCHA COs generally made no effort to learn Air Defence and generally the AD batteries ended up as either a dumping ground for the gun batteries or as a manning pool to top up the gun dets.

FJAG has it right: get 4 AD Regt fully up and running again, with some reserve units feeding it. We are a rich nation and can afford it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One could start changing mindsets by having the undefended artillery units taken out by enemy air in the exercise and CP's wiped out in the first hours. That may drive the lesson home?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

One could start changing mindsets by having the undefended artillery units taken out by enemy air in the exercise and CP's wiped out in the first hours. That may drive the lesson home?

Please.

I can assure you that never worked.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Avenger is hardly a big-cost high/hi risk investment, although DND is perfectly capable of making it so.  Why is such a difficult decision?

 

[FJAG]

Avenger is hardly a big-cost high/hi risk investment, although DND is perfectly capable of making it so.  Why is such a difficult decision?

And it would integrate easily into the big US umbrella.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

https://militaryleak.com/2020/04/02/us-army-to-soon-wrap-up-early-testing-of-short-range-air-defense-system/

Maybe a future system for us?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we needed a demonstration of how vulnerable a unprotected armoured column is to UAV's equipped with weapon systems, then we can just look what the Turks did to the SAA recently.

 

[FJAG]

https://militaryleak.com/2020/04/02/us-army-to-soon-wrap-up-early-testing-of-short-range-air-defense-system/

Maybe a future system for us?

I'd be happy if we just started with a battery or two of Avengers to tide us over.

:cheers:

 

[OldSolduer]

Please.

I can assure you that never worked.

A lot of the big thinkers say "we should do something about that" and that's about as far as it goes.

PLUS the ones who want to and try to do things are posted before anything happens.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What happens to undefended armoured units in the modern battlespace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3vKrdGhxA

 

[OldSolduer]

What happens to undefended armoured units in the modern battlespace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3vKrdGhxA

Gulf War 1 - What was the term they used when they literally bombed the crap out of the Iraqi Army in 191?

The Highway of Death

 

[daftandbarmy]

Gulf War 1 - What was the term they used when they literally bombed the crap out of the Iraqi Army in 191?

The Highway of Death

Dunkirk was kind of like that too... as was the Falaise pocket

 

[FJAG]

Provocative.

Who’s GBAD is it anyway?
by Hugo April 12, 2018

This article is a sequel to Hugo’s first article: “The Alliance vs The Bear – Some Fundamentals of Why Russia Won’t Win”

Last time we looked at the British Army’s ability to fight another land force on its own, and the accepted logic that it wouldn’t have to.  In part 2 of my Rant Trilogy, let’s look at the ability / will of the RAF to support the land forces…

The RAF’s priorities are pretty clearly laid down in AP3000 – the RAF’s cornerstone doctrine.[1]  The highest priority is air superiority; destruction of strategic targets is next on the list.  Supporting land forces in a battle is the lowest priority, just after making Army people sit in random air bases across the world for undisclosed periods of time without telling them why.

The Army will be expecting the RAF to support them in the ground battle to reduce land force casualties.  Since the RAF’s ability to conduct close air support or air interdiction for ground forces is firstly based on the provision of air superiority, land forces won’t see an F-35 unless loads of Typhoons are deployed to protect them.  Since there aren’t that many Typhoons, and last time we showed that losing an F-35 is a non-starter,[2] the Army is unlikely to receive (Close Air Support) CAS in a conventional battle.  We learnt bad lessons from Afghan (again).

So if our fighters are somewhere else, what’s to stop our enemy conducting air attacks on our ground forces?  This is where the answer should be: GBAD.  But it’s a well-known deficiency of the British Forces[3] – not least due to some horrifically complicated capability ownership internal politics.  So what do we do?  Again, step in conventional wisdom – we borrow it from another nation…

On a ‘recent’ exercise in Fort Leavenworth I witnessed combined joint planning with our US counterparts with representatives from across the US Armed Forces and some coalition nations. Prior to that exercise I had conducted multiple planning cycles that almost always included the phrase “GBAD? Don’t worry about that, we’ll borrow it from the Dutch”. I asked a Dutch Officer of his opinion on this and his response was that they borrow it from the Americans. So imagine my surprise therefore when on said exercise in the USA a USMC Major made the assumption that they would borrow our GBAD because that’s what they always assumed! I’m sure you can see the problem…

How has this happened?  While we were knee deep in a Counter-Insurgency operation, what were all our partner nations doing?  Oh that’s right…  they were there too!

So we can’t assume that we can just borrow a capability we lack from another nation.  We must be able to stand independently.  We must sort out our internal bickering and bureaucracy and come up with some better ways of protecting our force.  Make one service responsible for the funding, manning and provision of the GBAD might be a start.  But let’s go further than that.  Why is it CAS platforms can only act where there is air superiority?  The risk to the pilot and the highly expensive platform…  So, with the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles, why are we still spending billions of pounds on a platform that must be manned (by a bloody expensive pilot)?  By using a cheaper, unmanned platform we’re reducing the cost of a loss in both treasure, and eliminating the cost in blood…  Sounds logical to me…

In the first instalment, we assumed that we were already in a conflict and therefore the Sun Tsu approach wouldn’t work.  Let’s revisit that.  Hands up those who think we’re not already in a conflict with Russia…  All those with your hands up read this.[4]  So it’s too late.  We’re constantly telling the world we’re terrified of Russia then doing nothing about it.  Time to change that!

In the final part of the trilogy I will rant some more, focusing on this “say-do gap” and offer a way towards a solution for many of our self-generated issues.

The views expressed within individual posts and media are those of the author and do not reflect any official position or that of the author’s employees or employer. Concerns regarding content should be addressed to [email protected]

[1] Air Staff.  AP3000: British Air and Space Power Doctrine.  4th Ed.  (London:  Ministry of Defence) P.7

[2] https://wavellroom.com/2018/01/26/the-alliance-vs-the-bear-some-fundamentals-of-why-russia-wont-win-part-1/

[3] Gen Barrons quoted in the Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/14/cuts-have-left-army-20-years-date-forces-not-fit-purpose/

[4] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT468/RAND_CT468.pdf

See article here

:stirpot:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Provocative.

See article here

:stirpot:

Nailed it. We’ll be in a similar situation without the ability to interact seamlessly with F-35 equipped allies.