Air Defense for Armored Formations

[FutureTank]

Looks like this thread has been hijacked into Israeli vs Iran discussion. Please take all political matters to World Affairs Talk. Further irrelevant responses will be deleted without notice.

Actually we are just getting to the Air Defence part because there is not going to be a bombing run.
Consider the flight path! First entry into Iraqi airspase being searched by Syrian radars, then the US patrolled Iraqi airspace, then Iran with its Russian designed AD.
Even with US ok, ther eis still too much risk.
I would say that experiments in UAAV endurance for tactical use have not been lost on longer-range possibilities.
The question is, can one warhead do in 2007 what almost a squadron of F-15s did in the 80s?

 

[Waylander]

Friendly fire because of active protection systems?
If you are doing police duty you could turn it off and when not let it on automatic.
If you are an infantry guy standing next to the tank you also have problems if the ATGM hits the tank without being intercepted by an APS.

 

[FutureTank]

If you are an infantry guy standing next to the tank you also have problems if the ATGM hits the tank without being intercepted by an APS.

Do infantry guys stand next to tanks?! What about the tank firing?!

 

[eckherl]

Do infantry guys stand next to tanks?! What about the tank firing?!

Anyone who is standing to the side of the tank from the turret front or forward is in for a major concussion.

 

[eckherl]

Actually we are just getting to the Air Defence part because there is not going to be a bombing run.
Consider the flight path! First entry into Iraqi airspase being searched by Syrian radars, then the US patrolled Iraqi airspace, then Iran with its Russian designed AD.
Even with US ok, ther eis still too much risk.
I would say that experiments in UAAV endurance for tactical use have not been lost on longer-range possibilities.
The question is, can one warhead do in 2007 what almost a squadron of F-15s did in the 80s?

Do you think that Israeli intermediate missles have the range to hit Iran. This would assure that they wouldn`t have to fly thru SAM belts thus losing aircraft.

 

[FutureTank]

They will not use missiles because that will just allow 'others' in the region to claim they have every right to develop intermediate range missiles.

Probably a long range UAAV with a single 'hard' point

 

[eckherl]

They will not use missiles because that will just allow 'others' in the region to claim they have every right to develop intermediate range missiles.

Probably a long range UAAV with a single 'hard' point

Do you think that the technology is there to accomplish such a mission, if so then we are getting ready for a whole new era of fighting wars.
I know we can do it for small scale operations and for recon duties.

 

[FutureTank]

The technology is there.
However I doubt this represents a 'whole new way of fighting war'.
It seems to me this is a very 'special' application of technology to achieve desired effect.

 

[Waylander]

As Eckherl said you should not stand in the frontal area of a tank but in MOUT operations infantry sometimes uses the rear section as (mobile) cover.

During normal mech warfare you should have no problems with infantry near to you.

 

[eckherl]

As Eckherl said you should not stand in the frontal area of a tank but in MOUT operations infantry sometimes uses the rear section as (mobile) cover.

During normal mech warfare you should have no problems with infantry near to you.

The U.S is going back to placing radios at the rear of tanks again.

 

[Ths]

The U.S is going back to placing radios at the rear of tanks again

Dear me they are serious about getting women to join the army - if they start fitting them with drinks cabinets I might apply (it is such a bother getting your Johnny Walkers out of the barrel before you load it).

Actually: On the old Centurion, they had a notch with a heating plate for brewing tea: You don't have to give up decorum just because you are in the armoured corps.

 

[Kurt Plummer]

.PT,
>>
Tanks, when they move, they move in platoon or company size, i think.
These are small autonomous units.
>>

That they do, and like the Russians, there is -no way- we could afford to supply local AD to even a fraction of our armored forces, even with the CS/CSS units practically in-train=imbedded with them as they were in ODS and to an extent, OIF.
Unlike the Russians who hold AD assets at Division level or higher, we work within a system of independent attachable brigades whose missions are nominally 'pride force' (State Guard) commited to grunt work but which nominally once also included elements of the ARADCOM mission set that would have included HAWK, NIKE and Roland.
As is, we 'make do' with expanded sighting systems and non-developmental round improvements as well as slapdash mods to integrate Stinger as a sub-5km weapon on both Bradley Linebacker and (HEAT-MP) Abrams.
>>
In western armies, regarding local air defense, are these units acompanied by AA tracked vehicles, like the Gepard, at all times, or do they move without any defense, besides that provided by SAM units, in the rear?
>>
The Euros know better than to rely on the airdales to do anything useful with regard to sub divisional (fixed) AD systems. They remember WWII as a campaign wherein small and large armored units were often thrown pell-mell in to 'escalating' confrontations where in they were either subject to lump-sum massing of engagement systems. Or used as fire brigades to put out local conflagrations only so long as they were autonomously self defending from the air (more East than West on the latter).
As such they never really lost sight of the SPAAG/ADV as an essential element in any combined arms assault. Ironically, the initial successes for the Germans especially were done in the near perfect adherence of Clausewitz/Schlieffen styled 'go for broke, get so deep they can't find you or fix you' absence of AD.
Our own WWII AD experiences, particularly in Europe, came so late that the Luftwaffe was never really that big a threat, particularly as we had interlocking ADGE coverage with multiple radars such as the Germans could only dream of. That said, we DID pay attention to the basics of SPAAG and towed AAA systems but only until the USAF became such a monster (and nukes such an all-consuming threat) that the difference between 'main force' = Russian backed = Nuclear brinksmanship by assumption and 'round the back' guerilla campaigns quickly became one of airpower only to the first mushroom cloud. And no air threat at all.
In this, so long as the USAF could dominate nuclear policy 'by virtue of denying an investment in tactical AD' then the Russians were forced to face the probability of one-bomber-one-nuke-one-tank-division threats which they 'had to defend against' because we were clearly trip wired to a an instant SIOP level, even in Germany. Fortunately the Russians were too stupid to see that this made ANY attempt to 'expand through wars of revolution' a socialist agenda nothing but an exercise in headbeating on a brick wall of not being able to own what they took except as ashes.
Which is basically why systems like the M16 led to Duster led PIVADS (M163/167 anyway) led to nothing as Mauler 'the multifire Roland clone' was abandoned in development. This because, even at a time when guns could arguably defend a mobile microtarget from direct delivery and particularly laydown optimized (given Euromet) release conditions; there just wasn't a perceived need to make OUR forces survive so much as theirs perish in an defensiveffensive relative battle. And that was easy to do so long as they had to come through predictable terrain chokes and channelizers, en-masse, to get us and our ground forces were little more than a political 'line in the sand' tripwire to force the nuclear endgame.
>>
If so, how do they cope with attacks by enemy helicopters and aircraft?
Also, is there any site where I can find out about current doctrine for armored vehicles deployments and organic composition of units?
thanks in advance.
>>

The FAADS effort as part of Raygun Ronnies overall 'spend them to death!' policy of jumpstarting the economy through rash defense expenditures and nationalism at the expense of rampant inflation roller coaster interest rates, sought to provide an matching AD posture to that of 'flexible defense' via a multilayered systematic approach to LOS-H, LOS-RA and NLOS S2A missions. And of course it basically fell down on the hilarious supposition that 'once dominant', the USAF would /ever/ let the Army regain the slightest competency in defending itself.
As such, the muzzle mutts got oversized jeeps with MANPADS turrets and a fair FLIR plus network IFF/Radar but damn little else.
Mind you, they really should have known better from the start, what with the results of putting a 'fighter radar' (APG-66 as I recall) on the Sgt. York but with that loss went all the Crusader, Paladin, LOSAT, FOG-M and other antiair systems which could both keep pace with and reasonably kill aircraft from beyond PGM delivery range (though the baseline FAADS Roland/Crotale and other 'threat' systems whose advanced missiles we paid for the development of still exist to this day, in other countries...).
Again, we did get a bunch of sector radar and alerter system improvements but even those were basically worthless given the likely numbers of Russian Horde MiG-23/27 and Su-24 that would have been near-instantly GSFG massed against the NATO frontline elements with an increasing percentage of cluster and PGM type options to FABulous iron bombing.
Without runway+2hr independent Victor Alert nukes (the alternative to which were 'miraculously' brought online in about 4 years via the Gryphon and PII programs, the only worthwhile efforts of the entire Reagun Administration relative to /preventing/ rather than escalating a Third World War scenario) it would have been like fighting a Kodiak Bear in a Coat Closet. While mobbed by a swarm of Killer Bees.
I do miss the FOG-M though.
While it's ability as a helo killer was always questionable (like targeting a tiki dart 'through the soda straw' /as it flew/); it could have done for Army Artillery in THIS war what Netfires /may/ be around to do in the next.
Assuming the Airdales up and keel over from a collective excess of hubris.
Anyway, there are a few points to remember in context here:
1. All 'modern' AD is based on 1960-70s technology baselines DRIVING a doctrine which argues massing of discrete fires on a shared horizon as the essence of stupid. Because nobody had the technology to do more in integrating a bigger AD picture under compromised IFF and absent LINK conditions.
2. Modern AD is splitting down the middle, much as modern warfare itself is. On the one hand you have guerillas that think nothing of using bleeding-edge technology to counter balance massive force assymetries with an assassins style of 'one well placed blow'. On the other you have conventional forces (which are the only ones apt to legally purchase many of the weapons systems subsequently 'passed on to terrorists') which STILL cannot stand up to the masses of logistical might that a main-force exponent like that U.S. is apt to bring on. And so are forced to scuttle between hides, much like the guerillas. In both cases, your primary AD threat is going to be 'unconventional' and probably against soft targets. Whether it be RAM type systems. Or TBM/MRL/CM threats. And this will suck a LOT of money into 'unconventional' defenses. Which will both starve the conventional (mechanical intercept) systems. And render conventional airpower increasingly not so much out of date as completely vulnerable to the alternative. M-THEL, when tested back in 2004, could kill RAM threats at 5-7km. OTOH, it could kill _MANPADS_ (as part of a proposed airport defense system) at upwards to 20km. Given the MANPADS is actually the harder (less predictable flight path, shorter TOF) threat to /target/, it is a given that aircraft which have more in common with a shoulder fired missile (skin thickness' and proximal volumes of enclosed fuel etc. etc.) would be almost as vulnerable. Yet if you want to prevent another case of a lo level UAV from popping up and swarm attacking an Israeli gunboat as much as a 'possible' 100 civillians dying in a because a 333mm rocket came through the roof of their movie theater, you'd better put your skyknights out of business or your own people will.
3. SSPK rules suck raw buttermilk when there is a TOF vs. value issue on multiple refire (guided) engagements. Because not only are you throwing away a 150-500,000 dollar munition cost on ONE throw of the dice. You are also creating a situation where a miss means accepting a potentially even less favorable geometry (RMin) or LOS condition (Horizon Line) as or after multiple threat weapons have bussed off the delivery platform and are already nearing relatively static gound targets. Systems tests like the Mountain Top and JLENS efforts (which put a SM.2 and AMRAAM respectively into an ADSAM and Aerostat dictated kill box /after/ launch) do a little better at resolving the latter problem but still don't really satisfy the 'but what if it misses anway?' issue on complex intercepts and particularly fuzing/clutter issues which no baseline FCS radar is around to help 'Kentucky Windage as TVM' optimized the geometries for.
The obvious solution, particularly for employment against systems like Rafale and it's Rocket Powered AASM (which a recent DT article argues as being an FSO cued A2G weapon that could ONLY 'TISEO + Inertial Maverick' work from low-graze= low AGL flight condition) as well as of course the various helos and drone-cruise hybrids (think Balkans and Deny Flight as much as Mi-24 and 'action right!' armor attack here) is to go to a turboSAM. Because such weapons are readily built from non-developmental target or recce drone technology. And while likely to be expensive until optimized in missioned:mass production; they also don't obey the single-shot rule on either acquiring a target or setting up the geometry for an optimized attack and if need be /reattack/ sequence. As they don't have a ballistic over-LOS trajectory condition nor a single pass hit-or-miss-completely conditioned intercept. Indeed, at anything from 150 to 550 knots they can motor right on up and get a 'formating kill', complete with a target flash image and wardet signal.
Such is how you return effective AD to the Armored Forces of the world. Probably in our case through an 'adapted' Netfires CLU trailer or VLS-on-FCS box installation in the back of a Bradley replacement modular hull void. What such a system gives you is the ability to properly obey the third firepower doctrinal law to 'never associate your fires with your targeting', either by signature or value. Even as you double or triple the amount of total engagement time:space footprint and the ability to crosslap defenses without direct presence (overwatching lower value units from rearwards fire unit positions). And lastly, you save MONEY inherent to standing up the alternative DEWS systems, not simply in and of themselves but also relative to exposed 'fighter mission' assets which will become increasingly vulnerable to any kind of deep attack which involved flying over an ambush DEWS positioned threat.
The likeliest way forward is in fact with ADSAM with an MP-RTIP inserted RQ-4 that can rapidly task switch from high rez/long dwell A2G mapper to cued-on-launch tracking of inbound threats, whether they be swarm drones from a ground launch box of their own. Or a fixed wing/rotary wing asset which (by stealth or by preemplaced convenience) lobs a few rounds into an armored columns flanks before running for cover. Such air assets can afford to carry giant arrays of very highly tuned technology function and fly them back to a real airfield to service and refuel them. Not so ground units running over unimproved terrain for days at a time with limited ability (in long maneuver-to-attack marches) to illuminate from the quickhalt in providing even basic _surveillance_ overwatch of moving armor.
A ground column which moves 70-100 miles per day has only changed a overwatching ADSAM director drones orbit footprint by 5-10 minutes at most. Operational lookin depths being more about opportunistically meeting the conditional range capabilities of the TurboSAM (in attacking the deliery platform, prelaunch) than anything relative to either a 'defended' mobile unit. Or it's cueing source.


KPl.

 

[Grand Danois]

The likeliest way forward is in fact with ADSAM with an MP-RTIP inserted RQ-4 that can rapidly task switch from high rez/long dwell A2G mapper to cued-on-launch tracking of inbound threats, whether they be swarm drones from a ground launch box of their own. Or a fixed wing/rotary wing asset which (by stealth or by preemplaced convenience) lobs a few rounds into an armored columns flanks before running for cover. Such air assets can afford to carry giant arrays of very highly tuned technology function and fly them back to a real airfield to service and refuel them. Not so ground units running over unimproved terrain for days at a time with limited ability (in long maneuver-to-attack marches) to illuminate from the quickhalt in providing even basic _surveillance_ overwatch of moving armor.
A ground column which moves 70-100 miles per day has only changed a overwatching ADSAM director drones orbit footprint by 5-10 minutes at most. Operational lookin depths being more about opportunistically meeting the conditional range capabilities of the TurboSAM (in attacking the deliery platform, prelaunch) than anything relative to either a 'defended' mobile unit. Or it's cueing source.

KPl.

For this very reason it is so curious, that NATO wanted TCAR so bad for the AGS instead of MP-RTIP, when the latter has AMTI as increment 1 item on the spiral development.

I'm really hoping it is something that can be corrected at a later stage.

Btw, I don't mind the _//_>><<, but that font is a bugger to read.

 

[eckherl]

Dear me they are serious about getting women to join the army - if they start fitting them with drinks cabinets I might apply (it is such a bother getting your Johnny Walkers out of the barrel before you load it).

Actually: On the old Centurion, they had a notch with a heating plate for brewing tea: You don't have to give up decorum just because you are in the armoured corps.

I was training with The First Queens Dragoons Guards in Staffan Walden England and was surprised to have a hot water heater below my gunners seat on a Skorpion light tank, they said it was for tea.

 

[Waylander]

Really?
Muhahahahaha, this is great.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Friendly fire because of active protection systems?
If you are doing police duty you could turn it off and when not let it on automatic.
If you are an infantry guy standing next to the tank you also have problems if the ATGM hits the tank without being intercepted by an APS.

The problem with today's low intensity conflict is that you cannot tell foes apart from civilians, especially true in Israel. One of the main purpose of this system is to counter anti-tank projectiles launched by militants in an ambush. The question is how will you know when to turn it on and off?

Also the system uses a shotgun like blast to disable the warhead. I know I want this thing as far away from me as possible.

 

[Waylander]

If you look at the trophy videos you see that radius of the explosion is not that big.
You turn it off while being really in the middle of a crowd.

If you are just on a patrol in a civilian area you let it run because a ATGM or RPG hitting your tank could also very easy result in wounded civilians.

The US use ERA on their Brads and on their planned TUSK M1 upgrade. I don't think that an APS would be worse.

 

[eckherl]

Really?
Muhahahahaha, this is great.

Hey don`t laugh - all their armored vehicles have them.

 

[.pt]

Perhaps their Leos come with coffe machine??
Ours should come with a small cellar for "crew enhacement liquids" such as a good red wine, or beer.
anyway, as long it does not afect the vehicles fighting ability why not authorising a litle perk..
.pt

 

[eckherl]

Perhaps their Leos come with coffe machine??
Ours should come with a small cellar for "crew enhacement liquids" such as a good red wine, or beer.
anyway, as long it does not afect the vehicles fighting ability why not authorising a litle perk..
.pt

Yep - England has their tea and evening bomb fires French soldiers get to drink wine, and German soldiers get to drink beer.:shudder
We do U.S soldiers get to drink, that good old MRE instant coffee.