Subs? Really, I thought he was The Australians Destroyer expert....My prev was wrt Oshkosh and ADI(prev) /Thales
Can't comment on ARTHUR, but having seen some of the other nonsense that Pugliese has come out with, he's akin to quoting Cameron Stuart as an expert on subs...
justsomeaussie
Member
It was more about the actual CF report that was concerning. Rather than everyone drinking the Kool-Aid thinking it's the bees knees.
Kool aid? You are mistaking your ARTHUR weapon locating radar (WLR) for AMBs. We use the TPQ-36 as our WLR. The AMB Giraffe is an early warning system with a high power antenna as opposed to the ARTHUR.
justsomeaussie
Member
No. I was refereing to ARTHUR the system that was providing the CRAM in TK before the AMB. Both are Saab systems. The LCMR and AMB are the two CRAM systems that have been recently procured.
Below is an absolute genius quote from defence.
Since it began operation in December last year the C-RAM system has provided ten warnings against rocket and mortar attacks resulting in no ADF casualties.
Hmmm I wonder how many RAM casualities in Afghanistan we ever suffered??
Ahh Coalition assets. I thought you were referring to an ADF ARTHUR. I wouldn't call LCMR or AMB CRAM systems. They are both early warning systems, CRAM implies countermeasure rather than warning.
1 KIA and multiple WIA. Would you like to stick that foot of yours further into your mouth?
justsomeaussie
Member
You better tell CDG as according to them it's a CRAM system. When I last spoke to them the "C" counter refers to the alarm system (which is WAVES)
.
If you are talking about IDF casualties in Afghanistan I stand corrected. As I was referring to TK and therefore Op Slipper.
i'll just clarify but leave the above so it doesn't appear i'm changing the statement. To date I'm unaware of any ADF member who has been injured by IDF inside a FOB in Afghanistan(and therefore under protection from a CRAM). Happy to be corrected but I was pointing out the Defence's statement makes it appear that IDF has been causing a lot of casualties and the new system is stoping those casualties.
having had some involvement with WAVE, I'm struggling to see how its an alarm system... now WAVE might be different to WAVES, but what I've dealt with is not an "alarm system"
.
but, actual empirical data on how successful CRAM is not going to enter the public domain - hell you can't even see the info on the high networks.
i can think of any number of operators in theatre who regard it as successful, but the actual numbers outside of the puff pieces released to the media will only cut the surface of any capability in service
justsomeaussie
Member
Wireless Audio Visual Emergency System, WAVES
WAVES | Cooper Safety
Again, I was pointing out my concern and hope that the new Saab system (Giraffe AMB) performs better than the last Saab system (ARTHUR). LCMR by SRC is a good system and has a good reports from Iraq and is in pretty much every US base in Afghanistan.
This is public domain BTW.
ok - well the WAVE I've been involved in has no relationship to this.
Their use of the CRAM name probably comes from the early identification of these systems for LAND 19 that includes hard kill elements. With the need for a rapid acquisition of some capability just the warning systems were acquired as obviously you can’t buy something like Iron Dome of Centurion in the space of a few months.
Fair enough. The only such casualty I know via IDF to an FOB was the premature termination of a pregnancy. However with the push out to patrol bases and the fielding of LCMR one would extrapolate that the IDF (indirect fires for those who are unfamiliar with this ARE) risk is increasing.
Even though FOBs and patrol bases are built tough to provide protection the early warning of incoming fires does make life much better for occupants rather than less timely and reliable warning from non-radar means.
AMB and ARTHUR are apples and oranges. AMB is a much more powerful radar, they might be running the same kind of parabolic plotting software but the AMB system is going to have a lot more radar measurements.
justsomeaussie
Member
Iron Dome is an interesting solution, but at a cost of something like 50-80k USD per effector it's a costly solution to a 500 USD problem.
Boeing and NG has had some interesting success with lasers but NG's Centurion (Phalanx on land) never really took off plus it left far too much frag falling out of the sky.
LM has some potential for a kinetic effector solution along with the EQ-36 but it's yet to be proven.
I think we are a long way off (even Land 19P7 IOC is in doubt) from a real Counter -RAM system. I'm always skeptical of people spouting good systems because at the moment, they don't seem to exist.
Boeing and NG has had some interesting success with lasers but NG's Centurion (Phalanx on land) never really took off plus it left far too much frag falling out of the sky.
LM has some potential for a kinetic effector solution along with the EQ-36 but it's yet to be proven.
I think we are a long way off (even Land 19P7 IOC is in doubt) from a real Counter -RAM system. I'm always skeptical of people spouting good systems because at the moment, they don't seem to exist.
I really dislike the $50,000 interceptor vs $500 target line that gets wheeled out all the time. It’s a false accounting because it assumes the two sides are sourcing their weapons from a common market and equal bank balance and that the cost of the actual shell is the only cost involved.
One first needs to adjust the prices to purchasing parity. Which means taking into account the capacity of each side to acquire weapons, the cost of the supply line and the cost of other systems required to shoot the rounds.
The Australian federal government can afford to purchase six million Iron Dome missiles per annum. Even the Australian defence budge alone can purchase 500,000 Iron Domes. The entire Taliban budget could afford to buy 500,000 artillery shells, mortar bombs or rockets per annum. And the Taliban isn’t just fighting us…
This is a very simplistic interpretation but I have no doubt that coalition forces can acquire and send into Afghanistan more interceptor rounds than the Taliban can lob into areas needing protection with far less impact on our budget that IDF is on theirs.
Then of course there is the real cost of an artillery shell: the damage it does. It might cost $50,000 to intercept it but that shell could destroy a 20 million dollar helicopter. Or it could kill someone. Even with the cost of life only being calculated by replacement costs and insurance payouts the Iron Dome is a major cost saver.
There are many other issues as well such as the impact on the battle of taking away IDF from the insurgent. For our forces and theirs.
One first needs to adjust the prices to purchasing parity. Which means taking into account the capacity of each side to acquire weapons, the cost of the supply line and the cost of other systems required to shoot the rounds.
The Australian federal government can afford to purchase six million Iron Dome missiles per annum. Even the Australian defence budge alone can purchase 500,000 Iron Domes. The entire Taliban budget could afford to buy 500,000 artillery shells, mortar bombs or rockets per annum. And the Taliban isn’t just fighting us…
This is a very simplistic interpretation but I have no doubt that coalition forces can acquire and send into Afghanistan more interceptor rounds than the Taliban can lob into areas needing protection with far less impact on our budget that IDF is on theirs.
Then of course there is the real cost of an artillery shell: the damage it does. It might cost $50,000 to intercept it but that shell could destroy a 20 million dollar helicopter. Or it could kill someone. Even with the cost of life only being calculated by replacement costs and insurance payouts the Iron Dome is a major cost saver.
There are many other issues as well such as the impact on the battle of taking away IDF from the insurgent. For our forces and theirs.
justsomeaussie
Member
It's unfortunate you feel the need to down talk almost everyone. You are a smart guy Abe, a font of knowledge on some subjects.
But as you know ADF procurement strategy doesn't revolve around this war, and certainly not around the taliban.
I suggest you make a call to DM at CDG and he can set you straight on the solution to this problem.
See you at Avalon.
But as you know ADF procurement strategy doesn't revolve around this war, and certainly not around the taliban.
I suggest you make a call to DM at CDG and he can set you straight on the solution to this problem.
See you at Avalon.
I didn't think I was talking down to you. I think we just have another case of internet makes out minor disagreements to be personal attacks and the like.
I just really don't like the $50k vs $500 argument and I've been wanting a chance on these forums to thrash it out for some time. Purchasing parity costs apply to a range of other potential conflicts: Israel vs Hamas, ADF vs TNI, etc. But of course the big thing is the potential damage an incoming shell can do. CRAM doesn't require every shell being fired by enemy arty (or other threats) to be intercepted just those that are going to cause a lot of damage.
justsomeaussie
Member
I've been reading your posts for a long time now so take it from me that you can come across very abrupt and very quick to shut someone down. But back on topic.
You are correct in theory. However IDF is indirect by definition and Israel (and Australia) isn't fighting an enemy that is firing accurately. So Iron Drone is only set to react if the rocket trajectory is heading toward a built up area and that's still pretty random. Yes, a $500 round hitting something worth $100k+ is a problem, but the question is, how likely is that to happen. We can’t spend the money for worse case scenarios, just a balance between what is likely to happen and the cost of reducing the impact of it happening.
The problem in the CRAM area is that the technology simply isn't there yet, both at the radar level and the effector level. You've no doubt seen the troubles of getting a SM-3 to perform an exo atmospheric interception. Another problem is secondary fragmentation; laser systems suffer from this quite considerably essentially turning a super sonic sea skimming missile into 100 super sonic parts of frag, your problem is still there.
Kinetic solutions not so much, as I mentioned earlier Centurion suffers from the frag from the rounds it fires and others from the break up of the materials upon impact. The key is to have a high enough thermal impact to reduce the frag as much as possible and again, we still aren’t there yet with the technology.
It's all about the balance of probabilities. Against a modern military, it is quite easy to saturate your enemy with RAM, far beyond the capabilities of any CRAM system and cause massive devastation.
There are some interesting options emerging but as yet we need another 5 years of technology cycles to get us up to speed.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
With regard to SM-3, isnt one of the problems with using it to destroy a satellite (i'm assuming thats what you are referring to) the fact that it was never designed for that role in the first place.
If you wanted to design a missile specifically for that purpose, i'm sure the technology is available.
If you wanted to design a missile specifically for that purpose, i'm sure the technology is available.
Any thoughts on the German MANTIS system? To a non-expert it seems quite impressive.
justsomeaussie
Member
Nothing except they are incredibly expensive. They are supposed to deploy them to Afghanistan soon, so that should be a good test.
You can’t make omelettes without cracking eggs. But in your initial post I read you mentioned “Kool Aid” which is part of the language of the Clown Club Cult so an alarm bell ringer. Obviously they don’t have exclusive domain over the works of Tom Wolfe but combined with your comment about defence PR it didn’t come across well. Obviously you aren’t one of those guys and I agree with you about the stupidness of the CRAM claims made by the ‘on message’ PR claim. But communication via a few lines of text often between aliases is fraught with minefields.
Which is why an Iron Dome system which is more than just a FOB coverage CRAM system (like Skyshield, aka Mantis, Phalanx aka Centurion, etc) offers a more viable solution. Effectively Iron Dome is a SHORAD system. It can shoot down tac air, UAVs, etc with an enhanced coverage to legacy systems like Bolide. Compared to Bolide each round is about half the cost. That it can also shoot down RAM is a bonus to capability.
Focusing away from FOB CRAM for conventional battle CRAM should be leveraged from existing capabilities. Adding CRAM capability to SHORADS, 155mm field arty and APS. Iron Dome as a SHORADS replacement, the German concept for a CRAM 155mm shell (which appears to follow the fusing and warhead choices of Iron Dome) and a standoff HK APS like Iron Fist and you can alleviate a lot of the threat of IDF. You might not have the capacity to counter regiment or division level fire missions but certainly the kind of fires that would stop a mechanised combat team from manoeuvring could be countered.