Yes, it has been announced a number of times that #1 was going to the Falkland.

I think there is some of the Iron Dome software working down South too from what I recall.

Yes. Sky Sabre have Rafael Command and Control system.

But potentially the launchers can be pretty far distributed from the command vehicle or the Giraffe system?

So it could cover a pretty big area with overlapping fields of fire?

The three vehicles in the sysytem can be up to 15 miles apart

Hi SB,

I would have thought the fields of fire would have been determined by the position of the radar, at least in part, especially against low flying targets. I can see that having missiles approaching from from different bearings would make evasion more difficult.

Spreading the battery elements around makes it more difficult to identify the battery and take out in one hit, until the radar lights up and says hello to any ELINT flying within range…

Cheers CR

You would only fire one missile at a target.

All the radar is telling the missile is where to go XYZ before it uses its own little radar etc to home in on the target.

So no mathematical problem having the launchers in an array.

Hi SB,

My point about the radar was referring to terrain masking in particular, sorry should have been clearer.

Also, the radar is the single point of failure especially for the UK as we only have 3x batteries of this very good system… No idea if we have a passive targeting capability, technicially it should be possible and probably cheaper than radar to deploy. Also, pretty scary for any aircraft being targeted as the first they know they are in trouble is when they detect the missile coming at them.

The reason I raise the radar and passive targeting is that without additional targeting units your ability to exploit multiple arcs of fire is limited by the threat of detection from enemy ELINT.

My understanding is that in an intense combat scenario these radar units may be forced to use a shoot and scoot modus operandi to avoid a saturation attack. So they may well hold fire until a formation or a high value asset came within reach. Unless they were defending a HVA of their own, of course…

Hopefully, we will buy some more of these systems, but with the army being reduced in size again I cannot see there being sufficient troops to man any extra systems.

I am, of course, referring to a worst case scenario. Up until a few weeks ago the not unreasonable assumption was that we would get a few years warning of war in Europe. Whilst Putin appears to have badly miscalculated his actions have highlighted that strategic surprise i.e. initiating action in a relatively short timeframe (less than 18 months) is possible. It is a lesson the West needs to learn because it blows a huge hole through the assumption that it takes years to change the strategic situation. The main reason the assumption is so wrong headed is that it ignores the failings of our own politicians to heed the warnings early enough (I thinking here about Chetnya).

I do hope our idiot politicians see sense – but I ain’t holding me breath.

Cheers CR

Radar is not ‘the single point of failure’ with Land Ceptor…

One of the key things about the system is that it is sensor agnostic, as long as a radar is netted into the system it can use it to get a track to fire a missile. The Giraffe AMB radars are just part of the picture, in the Falklands the RRH sites and ‘other’ radars can be used alongside it…Land Ceptor can also use other sensors…including remote, unmanned radars that are bring retained from Rapier batteries…

So 1 battery per brigade area. Need more, and more SHORAD. I wonder how much more could the RA have with the .7 billion spent on BMD radar.

Maybe nothing if other army programs norms were followed!

At least we have this and I suspect it works very well.

Getting more of something is much more cost effective than starting from scratch.

It is the right sort of solution for throwing defensive umbrellas over largish areas?

A step change from FSC that’s for sure. I was interested in Fs comment that it’s elements could be 15 miles apart.

I’m not sure where the 15 miles comes from? Maybe it is the microwave narrowband LoS links?

Realistically you want them a good way apart a)so a bigger umbrella is created; b) so they are down threat; c) so you can shoot and scoot with the other batteries being well out of the way.

Hope you are all OK back”Home” Daniele. Beautiful day in Durban-just under two weeks to end of Summer 26 degrees and clear blue sky. Cheers for now

Bloodhound 2 was one of the most impressive SAM’s around, technically it was a lot more advanced than the equivalent Russian and US missiles. All to do with the guidance…US didn’t get an equivalent until i-HAWK related improvements arrived in the 80’s.

Like Swingfire, which was far more advanced than TOW (and whose deployment was a far lot more survivable in a shooting war), the only thing it suffered from was lack of continuous investment…

I will do a little more digging when I see him next ref which version he was on, he spent his entire career in AA regs started off on 40mm Bofors before going over to Rapier.

Not necessarily the given the rate at which Russia is burning though it’s stocks of munitions. Another month at this tempo and the Russians will be dropping oil barrels out of transports.
Not to mention it’s diminishing airforce, 10 aircraft lost yesterday alone.

I would add a huge grain of salt on that 10. Ukraine said it sank a Russian ship, which then turned up with no damage at all. So much fake reporting / propoganda going on by both sides.

That supposes that we would approach the tactical problem in the same way as the RUS are. We wouldn’t. If Light Role Infantry are mopping up your armour with Light Anti Tank Weapons then your infantry aren’t doing their job, full stop. It’s not all about protective systems on the vehicle itself, it’s about how your combined arms operate together.
My fear is actually that, in order to gain strategic mobility, we lose tactical mobility by going to a predominantly wheeled force. The assumptions made in the planning were false. I suspect that the planners in SDSR ‘situated the estimate’ ie they made the problem suit the desired solution. ‘We have the budget for MIV, we don’t have the budget for WR2…. well that’s ok, because we want the future of warfare to be lighter, more mobile, operating at reach etc etc… and best of all that way of fighting is cheaper!”
In ground warfare, two things are really king: Manoeuvre and Mass. If you lose either you quickly come unstuck.

Why would we lose maneuverability going wheeled? Isn’t the main issue with Boxer that we haven’t ordered any IFV variants yet?

There is a big problem that I get from my armoured friends – the turreted boxer struggles in mud because it’s too heavy, so they haven’t ordered it yet whilst they work out the issue. It’s great for a desert where it’s mobility is as good as WR, but in Europe in Autumn and Spring it’s not viable.

If I can find the pictures I took in Al Fawr (Iraq) I’ll post them. We had a lot of rain, in a short period of time. It turned the fairly hard sand into mud. USMC Strykers were fitted with cage armour around the sides that added about 4t to the overall weight. We were on our way to Basra from Al Fawr, in a convoy of Warriors and 432s. When a call for help was heard over the radio. We responded to find four Strykers beached in the mud. Where one got beached then the others tried pulling them out but got beached in turn. The Warriors by contrast drove straight up to the first one, slipped on the tow cable and pulled it out. Then did the same with rest. With all the extra kit, the Warrior was at least 10t heavier than the Stryker. Even when stationary, the Stryker was a good couple of inches deeper in the mud/sand than the Warrior.

Put this in a European battle scenario, where the earth has been churned up by artillery or where there has been persistent rain. A tracked vehicle will be slowed down by the cloying mud, but it will still be mobile. A wheeled vehicle will be having a nightmare, where it is better suited to staying on the roads. Which by doing so limits you area of operations and your tactical manoeuvrability.

Just to add to your points BobA,

If the Russian tracked vehicles are struggling in the Ukrainian mud wheeled vehicles wouldn’t stand a chance.

If anything the Ukrainian War is highlighting the need for a properly integrated all arms approach, with light mobile units, though wheeled armour to the heavy tracked stuff all having a role to play.

The big lesson though is that you cannot have too many trucks…

Also, if you don’t want to have piles and piles of stuff sitting on the shelves just in case, then you either need to completely overwhelm your enemy very quickly with what you have or you are going to need a deep and flexible industrial base because the next phase of this war is going to be an insurgency / resistance. If the Russians have shot their last bolt when that starts up they are going to have a very torrid time of it.

Cheers CR

Not really that simple. Plenty of vehicles got ambushed in Iraq/afgan. In a flat planes of Germany, where ww3 was meant to be fought it would be, but when your dealing with built up areas and road networks, with civilians all around, there is plenty of room for surprise attacks

so, how many vehicles did we lose in ambushes in Iraq / Afghanistan? On my second tour of Afghanistan we lost one to an IED, zero to RPG, and only one small arms engagement on a vehicle. On my first the vehicles were regularly engaged, but because we forced the engagement. Why? Because we aggressively patrolled around the routes we were using and responded aggressively when the enemy did get through.
the RUS are losing vehicles to infantry attack, again and again and again. It’s not the terrain, the terrain is the same for both sides. I’ve been on ops where we ambushed the enemy ambush party on their way in. The RUS infantry can’t be operating like that – they can’t be adapting to the battle that they are facing.

Totally agree. You can’t turn your back on an ambush you have to fight your way through it. This is something the Taliban learned the hard way. Where initially they set up classic roadside ambushes. But then got smashed as we fought through the ambush, whilst fixing them in place and then brining in air support. They soon learned to do more hit and run attacks in small groups was better for survival.

I have seen a number of incidents where Ukrainian forces have ambushed Russian convoys. A lot of them do seem to get extremely flustered bunching up together and not sure what to do. Though I have seen a few others where the Russians have turned the tables and fought the ambush.

Army should concentrate on drones, stand off precision weapons, and the Royal Artillery. Ukraine war is showing numerous footage of ground elements destroyed by accurate fire covered by drone footage.

Oddly those would have been useful in Bomb Ally in ’82.

Sometimes very old tech is the solution to the problem in front of you!

But you make a good point.

I wonder if a modern equivalent could be used? If the barrage balloon was given a radar repeater and IR heat source. Could it be used as a decoy to protect an area? I’m thinking it could provide some protection.

Not sure what the situation is with the UK’s anti-ballistic missile defences but it isn’t great. Either way, those kinds of systems aren’t localised around cities anyway. If you only shoot down a nuke when its looming over London that’s still going to be pretty bad.

Not sure what the situation is? I’ll tell you, we have no defence against ICBMs. Only the US has any and even that is very limited.

Cool. How does this relate to local city defence though?

There isn’t any anti air defence in the uk other than Sky Sabre, which isn’t deployed, and the T45s. Was that your question?

Exactly, the best defence against them is having them yourself which is exactly why we have Trident.

Even if we went to 10% GDP spending on defence we could in no way at all have an ICBM defence system that would stop even a fraction of what Russia could throw at the UK.

Not sure what the situation is with the UK’s anti-ballistic missile defences but it isn’t great.

There isn’t any defence against ballistic missiles in most Western countries.
Israel and US are probably the exception.

Lol madman?! Have you watched his address to the nation? Most folks have not.

Rapier was pretty good, being IR system it even tracked F-117.

Rapier didn’t really have an area defence capability.

It was a point defence system.

The F-117 would have been flying pretty low to be in Rapier range?

For a second before the 2,000 pounder obliterated the entire site. What is a cool story.

Rappier was not IR, it was radio command guidance. But it was a low level system, probably no more than 5km ceiling. So any fighter bomber could be lobbing bombs and missiles at it from higher altitude.

Rapier Field Standard C (FSC) had an IR tracker as well as the surveilllance radar. The missile was commanded by an operator using a joystick which controlled the command radar beam.

That incident was a B2 not an F117,further research suggests that the Operator was merely Tracking it with a Joystick rather than the System doing it automatically.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rapier-Jernas.jpg

Correct. At Farnborough. And at low level.

When the B2 goes to 50,000 FT or whatever the Rapier operator is obsolete.

You’re welcome, mate.

I believe the CAMM-ER can be launched from the same launcher as the basic CAMM possibly with some minor(ish) mods e.g. it may need lengthening unless it is a standard VLS such as MK41 / ExLS of Sylver. I discussed this sometime ago with one of the guys, but it was awhile ago now…

Not sure if they can operate from the same launcher as the same time, but I would hope that the two weapons are sufficiently compatible to be controlled from the same radar / command and control unit.

As I understand it this would, to some extent, be dependent on the launcher control system which takes targeting and firing instructions from the command system and transfers them to the missile in the tube. This is essentially an interface or interpration type of process. These missiles can be launched from a number of diffferent VLS via different command and control systems, hence there is (will be) a set of standards that enable these different systems to work together and as I understand it the VLS control ‘box’ is one of those interfaces. We should remember that Mk41 VLS, for example, can launch SSM’s and SAM’s each with different prelaunch data requirements, so the VLS control boxes are reprogrammeble.

Cheers CR

Hi CR, the CAMM-ER canister is a whole metre longer and half as wide again. They would have to find a way of mixing the different sized cannisters on the launcher. Possibly further back on the frame so it hangs over the edge and maybe only on one side. As there is a fixed amount of space up front where it folds flat behind the cab.

The attached image shows there is space at the back of the launcher for the extended CAMM-ER cannisters. A number of MBDA roadshows have shown the truck with a CAMM-ER standing next to it.

CAMM-ER is already integrated into the command system. The cannister will have its individual identifying code that the command system uses to monitor the sate of the missile, give target coordinates and then a firing command.

An individual truck can fire its CAMMs without the need for a 3rd party radar or its own linked Giraffe radar. Each truck has an EO/thermal turret that sits atop a telescoping mast next to the data-link mast, which can be used to search for targets.

Thanks Daveyb,

That is really helpful and interesting.

I knew it was a good system but was not aware of those kinds of details – clearly a very flexible and effective system.

The more I learn about MBDA the more impressed I am of them as a supplier. I should say that the MoD’s Complex Weapons Team probably deserve some credit as well as all reports suggest a very effective relationship between that MoD team and MBDA.

Cheers CR

Hi mate, I think they have actually thought the system through (for a change!). For example where it can use 3rd party sensors for search and track, thereby leaving their organic Giraffe radar set to passive, so it can’t be targeted. Also that if the command unit is knocked out, the individual trucks can still provide some air defence capability by using their own EO turret. Again the system can be expanded by networking with other Sky Sabre units.

The other good thing about the system, is that it uses Rafael’s advanced defense system modular, integrated C4I air and missile defense system (Mic4ad). This is combat proven C4i system used to control Israel’s iron Dome and David’s Sling SAM systems. So it has a combat track record that we know works.

My hope is that as it uses an open architecture backbone. Then the system can be further enhanced with the integration of Saab’s newer Giraffe 4A AESA radar. But also that it can be fully integrated with another longer ranged missile system, for example SAMP/T. There has been a lot of talk that it can be integrated with both the T23 and T45 ships. So having it networked with another longer ranged land based SAM system would significantly enhance our air defence capability.

Hi Daveyb,

You are hive of interesting information this afternoon, mate!

I was vaguely aware that the system could be networked with RN assets, clearly with the littoral in mind.

I have said before that I would like to see a Land Viper system developed as it would spread the cost of the system, provide land forces with a capable medium / long range and provide an opportunity to further develop the SAMPSON radar with a view to update the T45 systems and lead into the next generation AD systems for the T83.

Thanks

CR

I disagree Sea Sceptor/CAMM was originally designed to replace Sea Wolf in the point defence role. The vertical launched version could counter many anti-ship missile threats. These include subsonic and supersonic sea skimming, shallow diving and high angle diving missiles, not to mention the ones that try to jink and barrel roll as they approach. SEA Ceptor was designed to do all this but also have a far greater effective engagement range.

The Sea Ceptor/CAMM uses a directional fragmentation warhead triggered by either a contact or proximity fuse. So long as the active radar can see the target it will hit it. Its published maximum effective engagement is 25km. It max altitude engagement range is likely to be closer to 20km. it should be capable of intercepting a short range or theatre ballistic missile. As it capable of defeating high diving anti-ship missiles that will be following a similar path to a ballistic missile.

Iskander is a worry though, especially as it uses active decoys to help it penetrate air defences. However, it is not a stealthy missile. It does not separate the warhead, but stays as one complete assembly from launch to impact. Both the Saab Giraffe AMB radar and the CAMM’s radar will have no problem finding then tracking Iskander. Iskander reaches a terminal velocity between Mach 5 and 6. But slows to supersonic speeds closer to the target, probably due to drag. This will make it easier to intercept.

The issue I have with the Sky Sabre system is the Saab Giraffe AMB radar. It is not an active electronically scanned array (AESA), but a traditional mechanical scanning pulse doppler radar. Much like the Searchwater 2000. The Sky Sabre system could be much better, if an AESA radar was used. As it would be able to do forward and backwards scanning, thereby having more dwell time on the target. Which means it will be easier to differentiate the missile from its decoys. Not to mention all the other benefits AESA brings o the table.

The Royal Artillery have said that they’d be getting at some point CAMM-ER. There is very little needed to be done to the command system, except add the ER parameters to the software. The additional reach of CAMM-ER would fill in the gap between say Patriot and the normal CAMM. The existing Giraffe AMB radar has a reach out to 100km, which may be a little short for the ER version.

Not sure where you got Aster’s range from. Aster 30 can only deal with short range ballistic missiles that overfly it or head directly towards it (so long as they stay within 80,000ft). It does not have the effective altitude capability to intercept medium to intercontinental range ballistic missiles that fly higher than 80,000ft. Though it can attempt to intercept them if they are heading towards the Aster’s launcher within the engagement envelop.

A short range ballistic missile is one with a 600km range and that is what the “published” intercept capability of the Aster 30. ( eg scud type missiles) The ABM version being developed will supposedly have the ability to deal with ballistic missiles with 1500km range.

All existing ABM defences such as THAAD and SM3 intercept in the terminal stage, ie falling into the engagement basket. They don’t hit missiles that “overfly” it as such. Hence European Ballistc missile defence ( provided by the US) will depend on 2 aegis ashore bases in Romania and Poland and 4 Eagis destroyers with SM3, basically located forming a grid over the continent.
IMO , there is no way Camm would have a max engagement altitude of 20000 metres., 25km will be its slant range, following optimal flight parameters.
Sky Sabre will not intercept Iskander type ballistic missiles , if it did MBDA would claim it could, and they don’t.
It will take out fixed wing, helicopters, low to medium altitude cruise missiles and precision guided weapons such as LGBs.

Agree, CAMM ceiling should be around 15km+,

I agree, the classification of a short range ballistic missile is anything between 120 to 620 miles.
Aster 30 can intercept them. However, it depends on where the missile is during its flight phase. For example the OTR-23 Oka short range ballistic missile (SRBM) is said to have a range between 300 and 500 miles. It can achieve a flight apogee greater than 50km. This is well above the Aster 30’s maximum engagement ceiling. So can either intercept it during the boost phase or during the terminal phase. MBDA state that Aster 30 has a range greater than 120km (75 miles) and a maximum engagement altitude of 20km. Unless its really close to the launcher, it cannot intercept the Oka until it is in the terminal phase.
If we are talking about the Iskander. It follows a quasi-ballistic path reaching a maximum altitude of 50km staying at this altitude for a while, before diving on to its target. Again, Aster 30 could not intercept it until it goes into the terminal phase.

The CAMM missile has been recorded as having a maximum range of 65km. However, this followed a more efficient ballistic path. The effective engagement distance MBDA have quoted for CAMM will likely follow standard practice, which is for the A to B distance at sea level, i.e. 25km, as this is derived from standard surface to surface rocket/missile practice.

The question of its engagement altitude. In this respect being derived from ASRAAM has its advantages. The missile’s body is very low drag, compared to something like Iris-T for example. The manufacturer of the Iris-T Diehl, quote it as having a sea level to 20,000m capability, when used in a surface launched configuration. The ASRAAM uses a bigger rocket motor and has a more aerodynamic body. Where it can reach Mach 4, whereas the Iris-T can only hit Mach 3. Therefore, CAMM should be more than capable of reaching 20,000m if not a lot more, as it produces more thrust and suffers less drag.

Due to the small diameter of the missile’s body (166mm/6.5″). The active radar it uses will need to operate a a very small wavelength to fit a suitable matched antenna in the nose. Probably in the Ku (12 to 18GHz) or more likely Ka (26.5 to 40GHz) band. This means due to the free space losses that these frequencies suffer and the negligible amount of cooling the signal processor and amps have. Its detection range will be quite small, probably less than 10km. However, its target resolution will be very high. So much so, it will be able to differentiate fairly easily between the decoys and the main missile.

Can the CAMM missile intercept the Iskander missile. Yes most definitely! What ever the active radar locks onto it will hit. Also the laser activated proximity fuse will also detonate its warhead if it passes the missile’s body. Since the days of Soviet SSN-22 Sunburn missiles. NATO has had to counter high supersonic sea skimming or high diving missiles like the Kh15 Kickback. Both Sea Wolf and Sea Dart were designed to counter these. Are you saying the RN have given up trying to counter these types of high diving threats, when it replaced Sea Wolf with Sea Ceptor? After all a ballistic missile is just a high diving threat, travelling at near the same speed as a Kickback missile in the dive.

Aegis ashore will be using a combination of missiles for interception, SM2-ER, SM3 and SM6. The SM3 is purely an exo-atmospheric hit to kill missile. Whilst SM6 can currently reach heights of 130,000ft. Raytheon will be upgrading it so it can reach 150,000ft to counter hypersonic glide vehicles. Whilst SM2-ER can reach heights of 80,000ft.

“Bodies of all colours or none” (mustn’t oppress albinos)

I guess it could in theory. It has a max range of 43 miles so it could intercept, but I don’t know how good it is at intercepting high altitude aircraft – that’s not really my area of knowledge so couldn’t say.

It’s footprint will fit in with standard truck sizes and pallet lift systems, hence the hook that can be seen on the launcher apparatus when raised.
In theory there will be a max load for the truck , feasibly they could pack more missiles, but as with everything there is a consequence, such as additional vehicles required, bulkier apparatus etc.
I suspect it is weighted for air mobility by A400m, potentially RN landing vessels.

I’d rather eleventy billion!

Not yet, I don’t think the ships that they were to arm have even been built yet.