Ground Based Air Defence
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Ah! I thought that we had only converted 4 out of the ten back to naval standard
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
According to Think Defence the British Army has a total of ten Giraffe AMB radars in service. A total of twenty four Land Ceptor units are to be ordered though only the eight for use in the Falkland's have actually been ordered and delivered. These eight launchers are sufficient for two firing Batteries, leaving two launch vehicles in reserve. Each Battery will also have one mobile Giraffe AMB Radar and a one Command/Launch Control Vehicle. All systems are mounted on the trusty MAN SV truck chassis, which is already in service with the British Army. This leaves sixteen Launch vehicles and up to eight Radars left for all remaining GBAD duties for both the Army and RAF. It seems to be generally accepted that the MoD needs to order at least another twenty four Launch Vehicles as well as additional Radars and Command vehicles to meet the needs of the Army and RAF. This will require around £250M.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
A video from the "Sun" showing the official adoption of Sky Sabre by the British Army and its introduction into service. I believe it is already in the Falklands so this may mean the systems they are talking about are part of the remaining systems from the 28 or so on order and that this has been funded. It had been reported that only hte Falklands Battery had been funded up until now so things may have improved. Even so the Army needs far more than one Regiments worth if it is to defend its own units as well as protecting other high value locations like RAF Airfields for example.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
There's a bit of a difference though between providing organic surface-to-air capability to the Army and defending the UK from cruise missile attack. Sky Sabre would be pissing in the wind at solving the latterBB85 wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 16:02 Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Realistically out of range??
I don't think anyone thinks that. The Russian bomber fleet is plenty capable of launching volley after volley of cruise missiles at the UK, conventional and nuclear.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
At which point the only deterrence to prevent the Russians from doing something like that isTimmymagic wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 16:47 I don't think anyone thinks that. The Russian bomber fleet is plenty capable of launching volley after volley of cruise missiles at the UK, conventional and nuclear.
- The belief that NATO would honour their Article 5 commitments
- UK CASD resilience
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
At present we are going to have to rely on allies to provide medium and long range GBAD, though Sky Sabre can almost be classed as Medium, but we would do better to mix in a few, say a third of each Battery with CAMM-ER. With each Launcher able to hold either twelve CAMM or eight CAMM-ER, and the radar already chosen being more than capable of working with both missiles or is it the other way around, it would mainly be a software issue to carry out such an upgrade., but before we start with that we first need additional Sky Sabre Batteries to be ordered, double what we have at present, and we also need a gun based system to be integral with other Formations like the Mechanised Infantry and Recce Regiments. Only then will the increase in GBAD promised in the Command Paper be realised.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
BB85 wrote: ↑01 Feb 2022, 16:02 Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigger threat than it was 10 years ago.
I'd say we need the equivalent of T45 ashore, bit like the US Ageis ashore. Positioned at strategic places round thd UK giving coverage over important military sites & locations. Ideal world...Say one up in the Northern Isles, another at Lossie/Kinloss or even the old RAF Buchan by Peterhead. Then work the way down the coast. Edinburgh, Newcastle etc etc.
Isn't there a T45 test rig set up above Portsmouth ? Good place to start & test it out.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Used to be a dozen bloodhound sqns around the U.K.
maybe realising having long range Air/surface to surface and surface to air missile systems are a deterrent to people who may wish to enter your borders maybe a gd place for NATO and the U.K. to begin in there defence posture.
maybe realising having long range Air/surface to surface and surface to air missile systems are a deterrent to people who may wish to enter your borders maybe a gd place for NATO and the U.K. to begin in there defence posture.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Regarding T-45 ashore, it already exists in the form of SAMP/T. If we decided the future of AAW in the Royal Navy was based around the Mk41 VLS we could transfer our stock of Aster 30 missiles to SAMP/T Batteries, reducing the acquisition costs of such a system. It is a very good system that at present is superior to Patriot, though planned modernisation of the latter system will bring it up to parity.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
And although it was a good system they only provided coverage to a small part of the country.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
I believe there were two Squadrons of Bloodhound Mk2s split into Flights which equates to a Battery and these were dotted up the East Coast as I believe six locations. Previously they had be sited at airfields in Germany. The Army had Thunderbird, but did away with it the same time as it introduced Rapier, which also replaced numerous 40mm Regiments.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
But isn't the UK policy not too have missile defence for the mainland unlike most other countries in adequate numbers ie systems and missile numbers ,just like the ships and army regiments ?
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
As far as the MoD, Treasury and Government are concerned it is all about capabilities not the capacity to actually use them in a stand up fight.
Not ordering enough Sky Sabre is such a stupid move as it is a very good system that can be easily networked with other resources. Only a software patch is needed to use CAMM-ER as the Launch vehicle and Radar will accept the new missile and Italy is already integrating SAMP/T and CAMM-ER within its GBAD Batteries. Adding these to our forces would give us a very effective land based layered GBAD, further improved it we purchase a gun based system like those prototyped for the Boxer.
What we need is one Regiment equipped with SAMP/T, which is having an ABM capability developed, and two Regiments, one being a Reserve, equipped with Sky Sabre and CAMM-ER. The gun based system being integral with combat units. Given the growing threat the purchase of such a capability and capacity should be a no brainer for the MoD.
Not ordering enough Sky Sabre is such a stupid move as it is a very good system that can be easily networked with other resources. Only a software patch is needed to use CAMM-ER as the Launch vehicle and Radar will accept the new missile and Italy is already integrating SAMP/T and CAMM-ER within its GBAD Batteries. Adding these to our forces would give us a very effective land based layered GBAD, further improved it we purchase a gun based system like those prototyped for the Boxer.
What we need is one Regiment equipped with SAMP/T, which is having an ABM capability developed, and two Regiments, one being a Reserve, equipped with Sky Sabre and CAMM-ER. The gun based system being integral with combat units. Given the growing threat the purchase of such a capability and capacity should be a no brainer for the MoD.
- These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
- wargame_insomniac • Dahedd
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Ideally they would develop a containerised CAMM launcher that be fired remotely without the control and radar vehicles, and queued off an AWACS or nearby F-35. The containers could be used on ships as well so the value would be immense.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Thought that was how land captor worked in part in that the missile system can be dis mounted
https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... -camm-gbad
Though I have often wondered why someone has never used a land tacticos for example for the land combat management system.
https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... -camm-gbad
Though I have often wondered why someone has never used a land tacticos for example for the land combat management system.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Great news about the letter of intent, now we just need to order some more.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
There's no way a non-arty non-GBAD asset will have command and control of a box full of missiles...
External systems providing information into the command element isn't a huge undertaking, and whilst it could be automated in some circumstances, there would always be a watchkeeping element.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
This is why reversionary modes exist.
But you wouldn’t want to avoid the benefits of networking on the grounds of a “what if?”
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
If we actually planned to develop an integrated GBAD System, networking would be very useful if not essential, but at present we do not plan to do so. Sky Sabre batteries may get threat warning data form allied assets via datalink but we will only have between four and five Batteries available due to the low number of platforms being purchased and one of these will be permanently based in the Falklands, I am guessing one will be in Oman and one will be for training duties. So we may have two to protect up to two BCTs be they heavy or light, in addition to protecting high value locations if required.
If we are not going to purchase a true area defence missile system like Patriot of SAMP/T then to cover out forces we need more Shy Sabre Batteries, at least another Regiments worth. All part of the issues arising from the "Peace Dividend", being over and having to try to regain the ability to fight high intensity Peer level conflict. By the way this idea of keeping the enemy a distance sounds great as long as the enemy knows he is to do so. A fighting withdrawal, which is what would happen if Russia crossed the line, is one of the hardest action an Army can conduct and usage rates will rpobebly mean we will run out of missiles very quickly any how.
If we are not going to purchase a true area defence missile system like Patriot of SAMP/T then to cover out forces we need more Shy Sabre Batteries, at least another Regiments worth. All part of the issues arising from the "Peace Dividend", being over and having to try to regain the ability to fight high intensity Peer level conflict. By the way this idea of keeping the enemy a distance sounds great as long as the enemy knows he is to do so. A fighting withdrawal, which is what would happen if Russia crossed the line, is one of the hardest action an Army can conduct and usage rates will rpobebly mean we will run out of missiles very quickly any how.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
That's what fibre is for...
- These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
- Defiance
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Lots of pre-planned positions for Russian SAMs have buried cables between dispersal zones to ensure uninterrupted comms within the battery (and maybe even further back, if they've laid the infrastructure)
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
But isn't that simply alternate sites for fixed defences rather then mobile Batteries protecting advancing troops. Any Batteries we have will have to constantly relocate to avoid enemy SEAD and Artillery fire, so secure datalinks should be the norm. Even defending a fixed site, such as an airfield will require the Battery to be moving on a regular basis though in this case having a buries infrastructure maybe of use.