GBAD - The return of 'FOBS'

[PrairieFella]

Boeing tapped to continue work on new US Army air defense system

Boeing has been selected to move forward in the U.S. Army’s Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 Second Interceptor competition, the company announced. The program seeks to develop a new medium-range interceptor designed to defend forward operating bases and other fixed...

defence-blog.com

As an expeditionary Army I'm thinking that our AD needs to focus on the SHORAD (to cover our maneuver forces) and a medium-range system similar to this to cover our FOB's. Do we need the longer-range (Patriot-type) systems for our expeditionary Army or only for homeland defence?

If only for defence of Canada (presumably under NORAD) should any long-range ground based AD (if we do procure such a capability) be an Army/Artillery asset our should it come under the RCAF?

Im not very knowledgeable on this but this is what makes sense to me.

The way I see it, any guns or line of sight missiles like Stinger should belong to maneouvre units, something like Gepard as an example for a gun system for immediate local defence against choppers, drones, etc.

Any ground based missiles that is beyond line of sight should belong to the Arty, say something like S-400 or that ground based CAMM system the Brits (I think) are developing. The Arty already has the radars and are experiences in beyond line of sight systems.

Any future strategic BMD systems should belong with the RCAF since they're integrated with NORAD anyways.

 

[FJAG]

Im not very knowledgeable on this but this is what makes sense to me.

The way I see it, any guns or line of sight missiles like Stinger should belong to maneouvre units, something like Gepard as an example for a gun system for immediate local defence against choppers, drones, etc.
Any ground based missiles that is beyond line of sight should belong to the Arty, say something like S-400 or that ground based CAMM system the Brits (I think) are developing. The Arty already has the radars and are experiences in beyond line of sight systems.

I don't disagree on the basic concept but disagree on the details. Any simple 'immediate local defence' item that does not need to integrate into the overall AD architecture and which does not place an uncommon training or maintenance burden on the manoeuvre unit, should belong to the manoeuvre unit. In that respect I could see something like Stinger or hand-held anti-drone systems with the units. Gepard is actually a fairly sophisticated system with a radar and integrated into the AD network. A Gepard-like system is better allocated to a specialized AD unit with the appropriate C&C and maintenance and logistics system. The dividing line between the two is a bit blurred but it's not too hard to analyze any particular system and its care and feeding needs to determine whether something can be realistically organic or need a specialized structure.

Any future strategic BMD systems should belong with the RCAF since they're integrated with NORAD anyways.

It makes sense to divide AD as between the three services. AD system capabilities and requirements differ significantly as between the army, navy and air force albeit there is a certain jointness of components (such as the missiles) as you look at the different levels. As an example, you can have a significantly heavier radar system for ships or installation defence than you can reasonably put onto an army mobile system. Ships obviously do not need mobile launchers, while an identical mobile system may have uses on domestic installation defence.

I'm not to sure where Canada will go with defence of Canadian infrastructure. I'd certainly put the C&C of a North American AD system into RCAF hands. I'd also put the 'ownership' of any launcher systems in the hands of the RCAF if it has no comparable role in the army's expeditionary role. BMD is a good example.

The question that is left is what do you do with residual systems that can neatly fit into an expeditionary role and a homeland defence role?

 

[MilEME09]

Idea, Revive the MMEV concept but make it tracked, turn CRV7 into a vampire esc weapon for anti drone, 25mm cannon, plus missiles. Now for the platform, lets take the oldest of our Leopard 2A4's their turrets are out dated and obsolete with parts hard to get. So rip those off and drop in this new MMEV turret, creating a tracked vehicle to keep up with armoured formations and provide protection from air threats.

 

[PrairieFella]

Idea, Revive the MMEV concept but make it tracked, turn CRV7 into a vampire esc weapon for anti drone, 25mm cannon, plus missiles. Now for the platform, lets take the oldest of our Leopard 2A4's their turrets are out dated and obsolete with parts hard to get. So rip those off and drop in this new MMEV turret, creating a tracked vehicle to keep up with armoured formations and provide protection from air threats.

Honestly, not a bad idea for all of our leopard hulls and then buy something new off the shelf for tanks, aevs, arvs.

 

[FJAG]

Question for those who know - are our Leopard maintenance issues in the turret or the powerpack/powertrain? Most of our M109/M113 series issues were with the latter.

 

[GR66]

One of @Kirkhill favourite weapons being experimented with on an F-15E as an anti-drone platform:

F-15E Spotted Packing Big Laser-Guided Rocket Arsenal Ideal For Drone Hunting

An F-15E could carry up to 42 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System rockets, which are now combat-proven anti-air weapons against drones.

www.twz.com

Could be quite useful (and cost efficient) against the kind of drone swarms that Russia has been launching against Ukraine.

 

[GR66]

I believe the F15-EX has two more Air-to-Air hardpoints than the F15E which suggests it could carry up to 56 x APKW rockets. That could be very useful in a NORAD context for countering a cruise missile threat.

I've always thought that IF Canada were to ever entertain the thought of a mixed fighter fleet that the F15-EX would be the most logical 2nd aircraft due to its range, payload and the fact that it's already being used by the US in the NORAD role so no interoperability issues.

 

[Kirkhill]

One of @Kirkhill favourite weapons being experimented with on an F-15E as an anti-drone platform:

F-15E Spotted Packing Big Laser-Guided Rocket Arsenal Ideal For Drone Hunting

An F-15E could carry up to 42 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System rockets, which are now combat-proven anti-air weapons against drones.

www.twz.com

Could be quite useful (and cost efficient) against the kind of drone swarms that Russia has been launching against Ukraine.

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning.....

70mm = FFAR = Folding Fin Aerial Rocket

Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Technology has finally allowed the Air Force to meet its aspirations and hit what it is aiming at.

FFARs were the primary armament of many NATO interceptor aircraft in the early 1950s, including the F-86D, F-89, F-94C, and the CF-100. They were also carried by the F-102 Delta Dagger to supplement its guided missile armament.

The Mk 4 was dubbed "Mighty Mouse" in service, after the popular cartoon character.

The Mighty Mouse was to prove a poor aerial weapon. Although it was powerful enough to destroy a bomber with a single hit, its accuracy was abysmal. The rockets dispersed widely on launch: a volley of 24 rockets would cover an area the size of a football field. A particularly clear demonstration of this poor accuracy occurred on August 16, 1956, when a pair of U.S. Air Force F-89s were unable to shoot down a runaway U.S. Navy drone aircraft despite expending 208 rockets in the attempt.

The FFAR was developed in the late 1940s by the US Navy's Naval Ordnance Test Center and North American Aviation. Mass production was established at the facilities of the Norris-Thermador Corp., Los Angeles, and the Hunter Douglas Division of the Bridgeport Brass Co., Riverside, California Fuzes were manufactured by the Bulova Watch Co., Jackson Heights, Queens, N.Y., with rocket propellant supplied by Hercules Inc., Wilmington, Delaware metal parts supplied by Aerojet General, Downey, California, and miscellaneous spare parts were made by North American Aviation.

The original Mk 4 FFAR was about 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 18.5 lb (8.4 kg), with a high-explosive warhead of about 6 lb (2.7 kg). Like the Luftwaffe's R4M projectile of World War II, it had folding fins that flipped out on launch to spin-stabilize the rocket, with the FFAR using half the number (four) of fins in comparison to the R4M's set of eight. Its maximum effective range was about 3,700 yards (3,400 m). Because of its low intrinsic accuracy, it was generally fired in large volleys, with some aircraft carrying as many as 104 rockets.

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe the F15-EX has two more Air-to-Air hardpoints than the F15E which suggests it could carry up to 56 x APKW rockets. That could be very useful in a NORAD context for countering a cruise missile threat.

I've always thought that IF Canada were to ever entertain the thought of a mixed fighter fleet that the F15-EX would be the most logical 2nd aircraft due to its range, payload and the fact that it's already being used by the US in the NORAD role so no interoperability issues.

MQ-58 Valkyrie has three 600 lb hardpoints

An APKWS fully-fitted with motor, warhead, fuze and guidance weighs 32 lbs
An M261 19 round Light Weight Launcher weighs 80 lbs.

19 x 32 = 608 lbs
+ Launcher at 80 lbs = 688 lbs.

Reinforce those hardpoints and you could put 57 rockets on the MQ-58.
Drop the number of rockets to 16 per hardpoint and you can still launch 48.

Send a couple of MQ-58s up to accompany of our existing CF-18s and you can add 96 to 114 C-UAS/ASM missiles to the pilot's arsenal.

And you can buy a dozen MQ-58s for every F15EX.

If all you are looking for is a bomb-truck to deliver rounds from warehouse to target area.

 

[GR66]

In 2025 even AD units need AD units to protect them...

Ukrainian drone shadows and hits Russian air defense system

A Ukrainian heavy bomber drone has been captured in newly released footage pursuing and striking a Russian Tor air defense system, in what pro-Kremlin figures describe as part of an emerging challenge to traditional ground-based air defenses. The video, published by Russian military propagandist...

defence-blog.com

“This is a clear example of classical air defense systems losing the fight against small drones,” the post said. “The current reality is that surface-to-air missile systems now require close protection from anti-drone units equipped with electronic warfare gear and small arms—just like towed and rocket artillery.”

 

[GR66]

Rafael is reporting successful employment of a laser defence system to take out an enemy drone in combat conditions.

Rafael confirms first combat use of laser gun

In a landmark development for military technology, Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has announced the first-ever combat use of high-power laser systems to intercept aerial threats. According to a statement released by the company on May 28, the breakthrough took place during the ongoing...

defence-blog.com

Israel is deploying these systems as part of their domestic AD network. From the limited video it looks like a containerized system but I wonder if it is connected to the domestic electrical grid? I wonder what the performance implications would be for a forward deployed system where grid connections aren't possible? Would you need a significant sized generator to provide the power required? Might that result in a bright IR signature for a drone swarm to target?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't disagree on the basic concept but disagree on the details. Any simple 'immediate local defence' item that does not need to integrate into the overall AD architecture and which does not place an uncommon training or maintenance burden on the manoeuvre unit, should belong to the manoeuvre unit. In that respect I could see something like Stinger or hand-held anti-drone systems with the units. Gepard is actually a fairly sophisticated system with a radar and integrated into the AD network. A Gepard-like system is better allocated to a specialized AD unit with the appropriate C&C and maintenance and logistics system. The dividing line between the two is a bit blurred but it's not too hard to analyze any particular system and its care and feeding needs to determine whether something can be realistically organic or need a specialized structure.

It makes sense to divide AD as between the three services. AD system capabilities and requirements differ significantly as between the army, navy and air force albeit there is a certain jointness of components (such as the missiles) as you look at the different levels. As an example, you can have a significantly heavier radar system for ships or installation defence than you can reasonably put onto an army mobile system. Ships obviously do not need mobile launchers, while an identical mobile system may have uses on domestic installation defence.

I'm not to sure where Canada will go with defence of Canadian infrastructure. I'd certainly put the C&C of a North American AD system into RCAF hands. I'd also put the 'ownership' of any launcher systems in the hands of the RCAF if it has no comparable role in the army's expeditionary role. BMD is a good example.

The question that is left is what do you do with residual systems that can neatly fit into an expeditionary role and a homeland defence role?

At the manoeuvre level perhaps have optical/passive gun and short range rockets AD assets?

 

[FJAG]

At the manoeuvre level perhaps have optical/passive gun and short range rockets AD assets?

I guess where I see the complication is with the term "at the manoeuvre level."

Effectively, manoeuvre operates under a coherent, integrated and layered air defence system which starts with a hand-held drone jammer and progresses all the way up to Patriot and THAAD missiles and more.

I would propose a better way of discussing it is as "organic to . . . (insert whatever organization you wish to discuss here - e.g. platoon; battalion; division etc)

I tend to favour the concept that the vast majority of AD equipment - from the 30mm to the Stinger equivalent - ought to belong to a specialist AD branch and then distributed on the battlefield primarily on an "in location" format. This is not because an infantryman can't be taught to do the job, but because of the specialized training needed, the command and control system needed, the need to reduce the specialist training burden on battalions, and the need to be able to reallocate and redeploy these assets as tactical situations develop.

Yes. I do see a need to decentralize a counter drone capability to very low levels. Whether or not those become organic to low level sub-sub-units or not depends a lot on how technology develops. Changing technology, IMHO, is another reason to have a specialized branch for AD so that new developments can be uniformly implemented across the force. Unfortunately I see this as another PY battle based on: is the individual primarily an air defender and a rifleman as a secondary duty or primarily a rifleman with an air defence asset slung on his back? I tend to see air defence, even at the platoon level, as a full-time job - so I tend to think in terms of an air defence branch.

Full disclosure - as a gunner, I have never been an air defender, but as a mud gunner I have been air defence adjacent. I'll admit, my views are coloured by that.