Author Topic: Air Defence appreciation  (Read 11559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 363,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,568
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2017, 14:29:15 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2017, 20:41:17 »
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.
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,349
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2017, 21:51:11 »
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....

Online suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 237

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2017, 22:17:52 »
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

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2017, 22:20:44 »
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

Online suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 237
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2017, 07:08:35 »
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

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 477
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2017, 19:02:20 »
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.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,073
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2017, 21:53:00 »
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

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2017, 22:21:48 »
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.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2017, 22:22:51 »
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.

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,073
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #86 on: May 24, 2017, 12:42:13 »
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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #87 on: May 24, 2017, 13:02:06 »
Might be good to pipe some of our own through their school.

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 59
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #88 on: May 24, 2017, 14:24:42 »
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?
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2017, 17:21:18 »
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?
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #90 on: May 24, 2017, 20:31:35 »
Wait....someone else is arming their infantry with MANPADS....?  Who said that before?

As a short term solution. The article also doesn't cover their efforts to integrate the shooters into an IADS.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 170,651
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2017, 21:27:24 »
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

See above....from page 2...."stop-gap of shoulder fired Stinger..."
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 59
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #92 on: May 25, 2017, 01:07:10 »
So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,034
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,558
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #93 on: May 25, 2017, 08:48:08 »
So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?

Short term solution? Deploy with a larger force that does have IADS.

Long term solution? Deploy with a larger force that does have IADS.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #94 on: May 25, 2017, 10:02:41 »
So if the US is doing this, again why is this not an interim option for Canadian manoeuvre battlegroups ?
I get that a layered IADS with capabilities against ballistic missiles, air, avn, munitions on terminal approach and UAS is the ideal solution.  However that is likely unrealistic for Canadian GBAD given PY constraints, and money and even if we can square those items, it still won't be a rapid fielding of the capability.
How do we deal with the very real problem that exists now, given the resource realities we have?

Well, first, the stringer offers limited capability against the threats we are expecting to face. The recognized threats are Munitions (Cruise missiles, RAM, etc), UAS, and aviation. The stinger is really only useful against one of those, being aviation, with little to no ability to engage a UAS due to the targeting system and zero capability in a C-RAM role. Further, the stinger is "fire and forget" which will not be considered unless its an absolute 100% stop gap temporary solution. If we are procuring MANPADs there are better options than the stringer, with the RBS-70 Bolide being a primary one. Better TA system, laser guided, integrated BMC4I suite for the det commander, etc etc etc

Also, I disagree with procuring an AD system for the infantry. They're not a secondary duty, so unless the Bn's have enough extra bodies in them to man up AD platoons than the capabilities are better centralized in 4 AD for a variety of reasons (force generation, currency training, Aircraft recognition, collective training, etc). They tried to give the Bn's MUAS and look how that worked out

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 3,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 59
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #95 on: May 25, 2017, 13:44:48 »
I will admit that I am particularly interested in this from a BG perspective. I accept that a Stinger may not be the best MANPAD available, and I would definitely like the RBS-70 Bolide BUT if I can have Stingers NOW via UOR delivered from the USA with training delivered via the US Army (ala Chinook 2009) while waiting on the procurement system to pick the perfect system 5 years from now I am good with that. 

With regards to recognized threats, do you mean that that is what the CAF wants to be able to counter? Are we wanting a system that does all three things at once? I can't see how that will work in the immediate term as the three threats as you have laid them out are not threats that can be countered by the same system as you have already indicated.

Specifically CUAS is being conducted by assets and systems that are almost wholly unrelated to AD in so far as Canada understands that term (as far as I know) and will likely never be fielded by 4 GS and more likely by 21 EW if we were to decide to go down that route. C-RAM while useful, I would suggest would be unlikely to ever be fielded by Canada at the BG level. Given the number of systems we would likely ever be able to FG, their mobility, and effective ranges, those assets would likely be focused on Bde level assets.

All of that to say, it seems that the recognized threat of most relevance to a manoeuvre BG right NOW is aviation and that is what our largest ally is focused on with this reinvigoration of MANPADS. 
Is that not the same realization the Canadian Army has come to?
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 176,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,549
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #96 on: May 25, 2017, 13:58:13 »
Also, I disagree with procuring an AD system for the infantry. They're not a secondary duty, so unless the Bn's have enough extra bodies in them to man up AD platoons than the capabilities are better centralized in 4 AD for a variety of reasons (force generation, currency training, Aircraft recognition, collective training, etc).

Guaranteed: They'll shoot first and identify later, then wonder why they're not getting any helicopter rides anymore.

And our Southern Cousins tend to pay less attention to AFV and aircraft recognition than we do.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,321
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #97 on: May 25, 2017, 14:03:19 »
Off the shelf?

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/air_defence_systems/mobile_air_defence/index.php

 I think I read that original Skranger turret has already been fit onto Piranha III and IV so that should simplify integration into LAV 6 chassis.
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 170,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,540
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #98 on: May 25, 2017, 22:25:26 »
Guaranteed: They'll shoot first and identify later, then wonder why they're not getting any helicopter rides anymore.

And our Southern Cousins tend to pay less attention to AFV and aircraft recognition than we do.

You are 100% correct. I recall running my troops around Farnborough airfield during the airshow AFTER some pretty intense aircraft recognition training (using a big wheel of slides!) and, as a group, they probably got 1 out of 5 correct-ish.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,321
Re: Air Defence appreciation
« Reply #99 on: May 26, 2017, 00:20:38 »
Dumb question but are all NATO aircraft (including helicopters) not equipped with IFF? 

Would the more advanced GBAD systems not be able to make that proper identification?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!