A new AA defense vehicle for US
- Thread starter Oska
- Start date
However, that's a general issue with IR-guided missiles.
Unless you distribute FLIR information over the IADS (and that would be relatively useless for any missiles not co-stationed with the FLIR), all information you can give to a IR-guided missile is a targetting vector towards an aircraft picked up by surveillance radar.
And as said, Avenger can receive such information. It can be set up to automatically slew the weapon station - i.e. also the FLIR - to the vector given to it by the IADS. The gunner then needs to lock the system onto a target in that vector, and fire the missile(s) and/or gun.
Other IR systems work just the same - pretty much anything that doesn't use SACLOS (which effectively means anything using Stinger, Igla, Strela, Mistral - not Starstreak or RBS-70 btw, both are beam riders).
And it's not really like you can guide beamriders or other SACLOS systems externally over an IADS. Such standoff guidance from systems other than the launcher is pretty much limited to systems using targeting illuminators.
Unless you distribute FLIR information over the IADS (and that would be relatively useless for any missiles not co-stationed with the FLIR), all information you can give to a IR-guided missile is a targetting vector towards an aircraft picked up by surveillance radar.
And as said, Avenger can receive such information. It can be set up to automatically slew the weapon station - i.e. also the FLIR - to the vector given to it by the IADS. The gunner then needs to lock the system onto a target in that vector, and fire the missile(s) and/or gun.
Other IR systems work just the same - pretty much anything that doesn't use SACLOS (which effectively means anything using Stinger, Igla, Strela, Mistral - not Starstreak or RBS-70 btw, both are beam riders).
And it's not really like you can guide beamriders or other SACLOS systems externally over an IADS. Such standoff guidance from systems other than the launcher is pretty much limited to systems using targeting illuminators.
Last edited:
I did a little research and this is what I believe the tiers of US GBAD are:
Manpads: Stinger
-
Shorad: Avenger
Linebacker/LAV-AD
C-RAM
-
Medium: SLAMRAAM/CLAWS
MTHEL
(what people are talking about falls here)
-
High: Patriot/Meads
-
Area/Space: THAAD
I think that medium does not neccesarily have to exist as long as the patriot has the capacity to do that, now MEADS might be promising as they may integrate two missiles, such as the AMRAAM as well as the PAC-3 the fill that role. But in terms of a frontline over the horizon capability, with the Air Power the US enjoy's, I don't think its neccesary...
Manpads: Stinger
-
Shorad: Avenger
Linebacker/LAV-AD
C-RAM
-
Medium: SLAMRAAM/CLAWS
MTHEL
(what people are talking about falls here)
-
High: Patriot/Meads
-
Area/Space: THAAD
I think that medium does not neccesarily have to exist as long as the patriot has the capacity to do that, now MEADS might be promising as they may integrate two missiles, such as the AMRAAM as well as the PAC-3 the fill that role. But in terms of a frontline over the horizon capability, with the Air Power the US enjoy's, I don't think its neccesary...
The U.S also had a brief flirtation with the Roland SAM system, but those are
gone now.
For awhile, it looked like the U.S. might buy the ADATS (Air Defense Anti-Tank)
system, but that never happened.
Currently there is a ground-launch AMRAAM system (NASAMS) guarding the
White House, but the SLAMRAAM system for protecting U.S. troops in the field
has been shelved (for now, at least).
Recently, an AIM-9X Block II was fired from the Army's ground-based Indirect
Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-I (IFPC 2-I) Block 1 Multi-Mission Launcher
(MML).
That's a rather lengthy name. Maybe they should just call it "Chaparral II" and be
done with it.
Since ground-launched AMRAAMs don't seem destined for deployment (except
around the White House), will a new system based on AIM-9X or the Sidewinder-
based Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3) fare any better?
The U.S also had a brief flirtation with the Roland SAM system, but those are
gone now.
For awhile, it looked like the U.S. might buy the ADATS (Air Defense Anti-Tank)
system, but that never happened.
Currently there is a ground-launch AMRAAM system (NASAMS) guarding the
White House, but the SLAMRAAM system for protecting U.S. troops in the field
has been shelved (for now, at least).
Recently, an AIM-9X Block II was fired from the Army's ground-based Indirect
Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-I (IFPC 2-I) Block 1 Multi-Mission Launcher
(MML).
That's a rather lengthy name. Maybe they should just call it "Chaparral II" and be
done with it.
Since ground-launched AMRAAMs don't seem destined for deployment (except
around the White House), will a new system based on AIM-9X or the Sidewinder-
based Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3) fare any better?
The US Army purchased a total of 99 M6 linebackers. 88 of which are being refited/retired back to basic M2s under the Bradley RESET program.
This will leave US armored formations with only MANPADS for SHORAD using the older BFSV concept which is basically an M2 with a dismounted stinger team. All of which I think is a big mistake. When facing the Tali and ISIS etc there was no need to think AD but given rising tensions in the EU I find this a complete mistake to assume Air Superiority via the USAF and a limited number of Patriot batteries for longer ranger AD.
I believe they're a need to continue an armored tracker SHORAD vehicle for US formations.
$147.3M for Bradley IFV Resets & Conversions
The USMC also had the LAV-AD/Blazer system, but those have been removed
from service.
Lockheed was also working on a company-funded SAM system. According to
Aviation Week:
"Lockheed Martin is proposing co-development of a low-altitude anti-aircraft
missile as part of its offer of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (Meads)
to Poland. The missile, which has test-flown on company funds, would complement
the system's PAC-3 interceptors. The weapon mates the seeker developed for the
Joint Common Missile with the motor from the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System"
Does anyone know more about this weapon? I'm having a hard time finding info
on it.
Raytheon and Konigsberg have a joint program called NASRAM using a ground based version of the AIM 120
The US only has it deployed in the Capital region and no other line units. It has been deployed in the EU
America's Capitol Is Guarded By Norwegian Surface-To-Air Missiles
Last edited:
NASAMS can take not only the AIM-120, but also the AIM-9X , RIM-162 (ESSM), and IRIS-T.
AIM-120, AIM-9x, and RIM-162
http://i.imgur.com/aMlUx0t.png
IRIS-T
http://i.imgur.com/XCc5KLp.jpg
http://www.fofo.no/Bakkestart.b7C_w7zOZu.ips
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One needs to look at the "big picture" as it were.
Which nation(s) might the US become defensively engaged with in a conventional conflict, without there being a danger of the conflict spilling over and becoming a nuclear exchange?
Or does one expect that the US would/will deploy ground troops to a conflict zone where they could be engaged by aircraft, without either first neutralizing the aircraft on the ground, or establishing air supremacy?
Basically the countries which the US could not quickly and easily establish at least air superiority, if not air supremacy, are all considered Great Powers. They are also almost uniformly nuclear-armed, or nuclear capable. Several of them are also US allies...
When was the last time US ground troops were on the receiving end of hostile aircraft conducting ground attack or CAS missions, WWII, or Korea perhaps? And that was with the US fighting a peer-level opponent.
Short of the US managing to get caught by surprise and suffering massive initial losses to combat aircraft, I do not see there being a conventional war the US would fight, where ground troops could expect to be taking fire from hostile aircraft.
The US has put in place assets to provide a very significant SA capability, including knowing where potential hostile aircraft are well before they could engage ground troops. There is potential of course for a small number of aircraft to potentially be missed if they engage in nap of the earth flight patterns, but that would not be something likely to be done in tactically significant numbers, i.e I could see a single helicopter gunship, or ground-attack fighter being missed which could devastate a company-level formation, or perhaps even maul a battalion. It would be for those unexpected sorts of engagements where a MANPAD would be appropriate. Having more significant types of AD capability, when they are not likely to ever be used, IMO is a waste of resources.
The greatest threat from the air to US forces will not be fighters, but drones, cruise missiles, etc.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not quite agree.
Drones, if they are large enough to carry/deploy munitions (a la Avenger, Reaper, or whatever the armed US drones are being called now) would be handled/treated just like a hostile aircraft.
Cruise missiles would typically be fired on strategic targets and the difficulties (on the defending site) would be detecting them sufficiently early to engage them, and having sufficient assets to engage them with. There is also the danger that, depending on the size/type of inbound cruise missile, that it could be armed with a nuclear warhead, and that the US would need to handle that appropriately.
Not to mention how many countries have the types of drones and cruise/PGM's to engage the US with, and at least equally importantly, the C4ISR capabilities to utilize them effectively against the US, without having a potential nuclear arsenal?
Don't think drones like Predator, but more like Scan Eagle and smaller. With terrorist supporting states like Iran getting into the drone game, you expect to start seeing them in the near battlefield.
Throw in commercial drones and a good DEW company level defense would be a good solution.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
For the smaller drones, I do not see the value in developing dedicated air defence assets to deploy against them.
Sure they might become present on a future battlefield, but would they really warrant being engaged by a SPAAG/SAM? Or would they be more effectively engaged by small arms? Or going even further out, taking out the control systems by detecting the emissions using ESM and destroying the transceiver.
The relative cost of taking out a $1000 drone with a $50,000 missile is one of the reasons why I think a dedicated anti-drone solid-state DEW would be the best option.
http://www.popsci.com/navy-wants-anti-drone-lasers-trucks
Concur on DEW vs small drones. The idea seems to be to poke out the enemy's eyes quickly to degdade his SA picture. The laser is operational on the USS Ponce in the Gulf and the Marines are testing a similar laser mounted on a LAV. A rifle in the hands of a Marine sniper firing from a helo works OK too. :ar15
Marine Sniper In Helicopter Kills A Drone! Black Dart Results « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Marine Sniper In Helicopter Kills A Drone! Black Dart Results « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Great story, then I made the mistake of reading the comments :roll
Great story. The U.S. army is developing multiple systems to counter these type of SHORAD threats
From CRAM
New Launcher to Deploy C-RAM, C-UAV and Counter Cruise-Missile Defenses by 2019 | Defense Update:
As well as additional anti UAV and other projectile programs
Defense-unmanned
Last edited:
With UAVs popping up all over, including the inventories of terrorist/guerrilla groups, there's money to be made in developing drone-swatting weapons.
Boeing is working on a “Compact Laser Weapons System”, and the South Koreans have shown that you can knock down drones with sound waves.
The 50mm chain gun (how big can chain guns be scaled up to?) that fires guided rounds sounds interesting, since it looks like something that could also be used against armored vehicles and bunkers with the right ammo.
If they up-sized it a little more (to 57mm) they'd be able to use the already available 57 ammo from the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) for unguided shots, and the LCS would be able to use the guided rounds to bolster it's capabilities.
I wonder why the Army decided on 50mm?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure but could this 50mm guided round be based on the 50mm straight walled case developed for the Bushmaster III 35/50. If it is a version of this round then the answer of why 50mm is because the case had already been developed as an upgrade for an in service gun.
Not to start off topic of ADa, but if the US develops the 50mm chain gun, one has to wonder what other systems it could be fielded on? A future GCV style vehicle?