Author Topic: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability  (Read 8475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,810
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2019, 00:09:52 »
Sorry, Chris. I am going to burst your bubble.

In the AD game, the adage that "he who defends everything, defends nothing" is a first principle. The battlefield is not billard table flat- there are defiles and dead zones everywhere. When you say ESSM has a 50km range, that might be true at sea in blue water ops, but it would be effectively true anywhere on land. If one tries to even space AD systems across a (say) BDe area, you risk defending nothing, because you must achieve interlocking weapons system coverage. A better aproach is to do an estimate to determine what you must defend (ie, what our side cannot afford easily to lose) and then establish an all-round point defence of that area. It may be worth owning a few longer range AD systems just to really mess with an enemy's day. My sense is that we are probably going to need some sort of gun/missile mix (with maybe a laser option) to deal with all the threats out there today from UAS, to helicopters to jets to missiles and artillery shells.

I would further suggest that trying to do counterbattery work with an M777 (or any towed gun) will get you dead, fast. Today, you probably need rocket artillery to do CB work effectively. I would even suggest that the M777 is probably not mobile enough to survive anything other than low intensity conflict and should be replaced with either a tracked or wheeled gun system that can shoot and scoot. I guarantee that, if we were to fight a modern enemy, their CB rounds would be on the way to our gun positions, even before our rounds landed.

You burst my AD bubble!    :'( :'( :'(

Up in flames again.  ;D

So the M777 isn't the CB answer.

How about the Truck Mounted Launcher with a NASAM/MML/HIMARS type box launcher?  One launcher for AIM9, ESSM and GMRLS.

As for the number of launchers, missiles and vital points... back to the number of bucks in the bank.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 213,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,559
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2019, 00:32:02 »
I'm sure we could do a more modern version of the LAV-AD using a LAV6 chasis, and what ever is the best missile/chaingun/FCS on the market today.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav-ad.htm

The US is working on an update of that called the IMSHORAD



https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/28/us-armys-interim-short-range-air-defense-solution-crystallizes/

It includes a pod of Stingers, another of Longbow Hellfires, an M203 chaingun and a 7.62 mm machine gun.

I like it.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 259,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,366
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2019, 00:57:26 »
The US is working on an update of that called the IMSHORAD



https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/28/us-armys-interim-short-range-air-defense-solution-crystallizes/

It includes a pod of Stingers, another of Longbow Hellfires, an M203 chaingun and a 7.62 mm machine gun.

I like it.

 :cheers:

That would perfect for bachelor parties.
"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 Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 149,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,713
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2019, 01:38:55 »
Nice thing about that is we already make and use the chassis, so it's the weapon system your buying. Build a towed/truck mounted version for the Reserves, starting with the comms, gun and optics.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 997
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2019, 15:54:01 »
So what is it? Close in air defence or anti-tank/bunker busting missile carrier.  Doesn't really fit into our doctrine or experience does it?  Tanks are for the direct fires in the Canadian Army, not LAV's.  The lessons on that seem pretty clear (see Tanks in Afghanistan).  I suppose if you did the double Stinger pod but then you're waiting for an enemy aircraft to literally fly directly over you at very low altitude.

I would suspect that something like the CAMM system being used by the UK would be much better for AD.  Better ranges, active RF seeker, cold launch etc...  Stingers are just seem so short ranged...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,810
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2019, 19:21:48 »
Sorry for popping up again

But I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

Pg 37 of the GBAD presentation - GBAD Concept of Operations - M777s providing Counterbattery fire.

Also, a fixed Command Centre within the Brigade Area of Operations with manoeuvre elements working under an Airspace Coordination bubble.

I am guessing that the AD requirements would be different at Suffield, Pet and Gagetown, or for that matter Kananaskis Country.  Which do you plan for?  Knowing that whatever you choose the enemy will do the other thing.

And for the record - I thought we looked at this thing before - and were less than impressed.  MMEV?




GBAD Concept of Operations
GBAD primary mission is to defend Canadian Armed Forces of incoming Brigade level and lower air attacks
•   Canada will likely deploy as part of a coalition
•   Depending on scenario expectation is to operate over extended distances (Adaptive Dispersed Operations for Brigade coverage of 7500 sq kms)  Edit 49 km radius FTR
•   Robust defences and well-practised reversionary modes
•   Entire area is not required to be covered
•   GBAD will be given priorities to defend
•   Able to concentrate force at decisive point/time
•   Defend themselves
•   An autonomous capability against multiple simultaneous threats
•   Networked Command and Control system able to operate (with), interoperable with allies
•   Early warning of an Indirect Fire and/or Remotely Piloted Aerial System attack via localized audio/visual warning to troops
•   An increased ability to synchronize and integrate joint effects
•   Given roles: Air Surveillance and Weapon Locating
•   Mobility versus Range Coverage
•   Field Headquarters that are mobile, protected and expandable  (Phew - originally read that as expendable)
•   A sustainment system that is robust, responsive, connected and protected
•   Be resilient (able to operate after losses)
•   A training system to improve individual and collective effectiveness   36
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 19:35:19 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 113,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,052
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2019, 20:08:38 »
Stryker variant.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/

How fast is that schedule?

September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems.
February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD.
April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies.
May: An Army panel evaluates companies’ White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker.
August 31: The Army’s target date to award contracts.
Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered.
2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed.
2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 149,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,713
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2019, 20:46:52 »
We want the allseeing, alldoing, wunderweapon and will spend millions and years testing and talking, with the end result of zip. Start small and work up.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,678
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2019, 00:19:29 »
The MMEV was a good idea, but in testing the LAV 3 flipped when the missile was fired at a 90 degree angle to the vehicle. If anyone has any of the older issues of Canadian Defense Review I believe it was one of the 2015 issues that covered the tests. Would it work on a LAV 6 which is heavier, longer, and wider? maybe but it would have to be tested. Another option would be to heavily mod the Chassis cut out the crew compartment and lower the turret into that area.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,771
  • Freespeecher
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2019, 16:26:16 »
Two things to say about a LAV 6 based GBAD system:

1. Make it GBAD and stop adding other s**t to it. If the system illustrated has two pods, then one could be Stingers and the other a different sort of SAM. This will provide a means to deal with different or difficult targets, and also give enemy air commanders more problems to deal with, since they now are sending their assets against a system that has three modes of attack (Stinger, cannon and second missile system). I'll leave what the second missile should be to the experts.

2. A large, top heavy system might not be the best COA. The LAV also comes in a "pickup truck" version. While you might not get a full 360 traverse, the turret mounted low on the chassis makes the overall vehicle more stable and less prone to tipping or rollovers. The major disadvantage to this is the "pickup truck" is a new hull for the system, but so long as all the other automotive systems are rationalized to match the LAV 6 fleet, this should not be a huge issue. The illustration has the usual "lets have AA and Anti Armour missiles mounted" porn. See point 1

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 149,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,713
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #60 on: October 17, 2019, 20:06:25 »
Looks very nose heavy

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 113,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,052

Offline edlabonte

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2019, 21:25:54 »
Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.

The army doesn't need an ADATS/GBAD/MMEV.  They already have an Anti take system, it's called the tank. It is not the job of the Army to fight the battle in the air, that's what the Air Force is for.

Counter-Proposal: Establish an ADATS/GBAD/MMEB capability for the RCAF. They are best served to protect an Airfield anyway.  Lots of the previous AD Regiments were attached to the Air Force so why not just make them an Air asset. Build up a Sqn at every Wing, or a Flt at the Sqns, with weapon systems and train the airmen to provide defensive capabilities in theater on the airfield.
      I'm sure commanders would appreciate the help of airment well trained in field-craft and small arms in their Readiness Training Flights and GSAR teams allowing for more technicians to return to the flight line.  Likewise with other training institutions (RCAF Academy, CFLRS) would benefit from these kinds of airmen and not ATIS Techs and Air Traffic Controllers who can clearly serve the CAF better in their primary roles.
     

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,680
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2019, 21:48:33 »
Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.
...
It's not a radical opinion, but it is an uneducated one that vastly over estimates the ability of the air force, not just ours but every air force, to counter and destroy every airborne threat to ground forces. Kind of like the over confidence some people had that strategic bombing alone could win a war...

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 259,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,366
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2019, 22:21:02 »
It's not a radical opinion, but it is an uneducated one that vastly over estimates the ability of the air force, not just ours but every air force, to counter and destroy every airborne threat to ground forces. Kind of like the over confidence some people had that strategic bombing alone could win a war...

Also, a bright airforce blue APC, towing a luxury 5th wheel, would stand out a few miles away.

Just sayin' :)
"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 SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 154,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2019, 22:35:25 »
Well, I'm going to be the radical opinion in this thread but here i go.

The army doesn't need an ADATS/GBAD/MMEV.  They already have an Anti take system, it's called the tank. It is not the job of the Army to fight the battle in the air, that's what the Air Force is for.

Counter-Proposal: Establish an ADATS/GBAD/MMEB capability for the RCAF. They are best served to protect an Airfield anyway.  Lots of the previous AD Regiments were attached to the Air Force so why not just make them an Air asset. Build up a Sqn at every Wing, or a Flt at the Sqns, with weapon systems and train the airmen to provide defensive capabilities in theater on the airfield.
      I'm sure commanders would appreciate the help of airment well trained in field-craft and small arms in their Readiness Training Flights and GSAR teams allowing for more technicians to return to the flight line.  Likewise with other training institutions (RCAF Academy, CFLRS) would benefit from these kinds of airmen and not ATIS Techs and Air Traffic Controllers who can clearly serve the CAF better in their primary roles.
   

So...no.

Your appreciation of history is terrible. 128 and 129 AD Batteries at Baden and Lahr in Germany were units of the Royal Canadian Artillery (ie the Army). They were not attached to the Air Force (there was not RCAF in those days), rather they worked for Canadian Forces Europe, thru 4 AD Regt. In some Air Forces, airfield air defence and even medium and high level AD is owned by an Air Force, but there is no universal model. I can think of no examples where an Air Force owns the SHORAD capability that then protects an Army.

Air Defence is not soley owned by the Air Force. It is a joint battle. Otherwise- what would be your solution for the Navy? The Air Force owning the SAMs on the ships and staffing half the Ops Room with RCAF personnel?



Offline edlabonte

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2019, 23:41:50 »
So...no.

Your appreciation of history is terrible. 128 and 129 AD Batteries at Baden and Lahr in Germany were units of the Royal Canadian Artillery (ie the Army). They were not attached to the Air Force (there was not RCAF in those days), rather they worked for Canadian Forces Europe, thru 4 AD Regt. In some Air Forces, airfield air defence and even medium and high level AD is owned by an Air Force, but there is no universal model. I can think of no examples where an Air Force owns the SHORAD capability that then protects an Army.

Air Defence is not soley owned by the Air Force. It is a joint battle. Otherwise- what would be your solution for the Navy? The Air Force owning the SAMs on the ships and staffing half the Ops Room with RCAF personnel?




Thank you kindly TACCO, examples are always helpful.  AD Regts do technically fall under Army history and they don't teach very much of that to the Air Force.

Would it be fair to say that all three, Short, Medium and Long range AD assets would be beneficial for the CAF in the event of conflict with an Air Force and not just focusing on one type?

Also, the Navy already does their own AD. They are armed to defend themselves against Exocet (Or Exocet like) attacks.  I assume you have spent more time with the navy than you care to admit and have better insight into their AD capabilities.  I believe the Winnipeg set a record once for repelling the most simultaneous Exocet attacks by a frigate during an exercise.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 226,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,360
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2019, 23:47:43 »
Stryker variant.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/

How fast is that schedule?

September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems.
February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD.
April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies.
May: An Army panel evaluates companies’ White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker.
August 31: The Army’s target date to award contracts.
Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered.
2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed.
2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded.

Just debuted at AUSA 2019. :nod:

Hmmm...that chassis sure looks familiar, eh? ;)




Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 113,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,052
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #68 on: October 18, 2019, 00:51:10 »
Drones are so cheap even terror groups have them. Some of the SHORAD solutions include a laser. I have seen these solutions mounted on Hummers so I could see these at battalion level. A brigade might have a battery and the division would have a battalion. No doubt that the USAF could put up an umbrella over the battle space but that leaves cruise missile's and drones to be dealt with by ground forces.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,771
  • Freespeecher
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2019, 01:10:32 »
Everything is there to meet the time line, just please put a different second pod on there without the Hellfires....

(Mistral, Starstreak, RBS 70, Spyder or Stunner....)

Lasers, even solid state lasers are power hogs because the coupling of input energy to light emission is very poor. A capable GBAD laser design is currently being created by Lockheed on the chassis of a FMTV, but uses the turbine engine of a scout helicopter as the power source, producing about 300 kW of power which (due to the inefficient nature of generating laser light) becomes a 100 kW output beam:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/05/16/dynetics-lockheed-team-beats-out-raytheon-to-build-100-kilowatt-laser-weapon/

Filling the back of a LAV with a gas turbine engine and all the electronics, power management and heat management systems is doable. no doubt, but might not provide the optimal laser weapons platform. The US army demonstrated a 5 kW laser on a Stryker, so there is a bit of a gap.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 113,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,052
Re: Reviving Canadian GBAD Capability
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2019, 03:41:18 »
Then we have the USMC's drone killer that was used recently while at sea using microwave tech.