Britain launches new ‘Ground Based Air Defence’ project

You mean LMM of course, not LVM.
I don’t recall any announcement other than LMM entering service as Martlet as ASM.
Davey must be the man to answer regards Starstreak ( HVM ) developments?

Starstreak 2 has already been developed and tested.The production order was switched to Martlet (LMM) however. It’s likely that Starstreak 2 will be ordered to replace those sent to Ukraine and additional Martlet as well.

The interesting bit will be if any of the additional warhead/seeker/engine upgrades will be funded for Martlet.

The smart move is CAMM, CAMM-ER, Starstreak 2 and Martlet with the Thales Rapidfire system utilising some of the 40mm CT guns that we have lying around. An upgrade to ADAD and additional C-UAS systems/radar’s from Blighter would be really useful as well. Add in the additional radar’s that will be ordered to replace MAMBA that will also have air surveillance capability to complement Giraffe AMB and we’ve actually got all of the building blocks of a robust capability in place…

ADAD, any indication that’s included in the upgrades or just a suggestion? It’s used in conjunction with Starstreak I understand?

It is LMM but, rightly or wrongly, it has been referred to as LVM in some media. What the original source for LVM is I couldn’t say.

Thank you!

Have wanted to raise the following for some time, but am very concious that land forces are not my part of ship, as you know Daniele. You’ll also be aware that hasn’t stopped before, though. Leaving aside stealth, my thoughts go on these lines:
a) Air Forces have never majored on thick armour for obvious reasons.
b) Navies followed an arms race matching firepower to armour and back, but since WW2 gave that up in favour of missile / point defence options.
c) Armies still put great resource into heavy AFV, though.

Leaving out a), which will never change, I have to concede that not armouring naval vessels has yet to be fully stressed in major conflict, but the assumption is that they’ll follow the current path.
Against that, tanks have shown a vulnerability to exactly the issues confronted and adapted to by the other services. Indeed, one could argue that reverting to battleship concepts by marine forces (I’m not suggesting) would at least not face the prospect that the transport medium would be unable to support them. Whereas the more one observes tanks -i.e. land battleships – increasing in weight the less manouverable and transportable they appear. And still get clobbered.

Clearly, you can see where I’m headed, naively or otherwise. But what’s your or any others consideration, looking to the future, as to lighter weight designed ground up to incorporate tailored trophy-like systems. I know tank destroyers are nothing new and that the revert to tanks has occurred to date (the tank is dead, long live the tank), and have to accept there’s good reason. I just find it increasingly hard to comprehend under modern conditions, particularly viz-a-viz other services direction of travel.

I love the Boxer concept, particularly swappable modules. What formed in my mind back aways, was a tracked concept as an impressively-armed AFV – but with point defences paramount.

Regards as always.

I think that is the direction the army are heading, or want to if they can get past their own spin and actually stick to a plan.
They have said it themselves. Smaller, lighter, agile, trading mass for agility and firepower, linked to stealth, EW, ISTAR, and deep fires.

I still believe in the tank myself. The Russians have just used theirs appallingly.

Tank Destroyers. My fav vehicles from WW2! All German. They had a need for them.

I thought navies still had armour around vital areas on vessels, not the armour you mean of course.

If we still had a RARDE which the idiots in government did away with or privatized, like much of our military R&D base, maybe such a concept would appear.

Thanks for that. I suppose the baseline question to date has always been, Why does the revert to heavy armour occur? Don’t think I’ve come across that one as a specific. One never stops pondering and thought processes constantly refine, but thats what makes discussion perennially fascinating.
Yes, referring to heavy and heavier armour solutions rather than very little, as you say.
One area not faced by air and sea craft to such a significant degree is landscapes’ ability to provide cover to the last seconds e.g. forest and urbane. But they have never been traditional tank country anyway, quite the opposite. So cannot see that as a primary reason, though it’s in the mix.
With that in mind, coupled with the new technological challenges tanks face in order to survive, I now start to wonder if the UK Army may not be more on the money having fewer MBT for justified occasions – IF we complement them with meaningful numbers of postulated lighter, ‘savvy’ variants.
Enough from me for now, anyway.
Rgs

Totally agree with you Daniele.

We need TDs to augment the future small MBT fleet.

I was at RARDE Chertsey in 89/90 and our unmanned vehicles work was at least 15 years ahead of civvy R&D; it was said that our colleagues at RARDE Fort Halstead were working on EM rail guns for ships and tanks at the same time.

Wonder where that tech went? Shared with DARPA?

Russian tanks in Ukraine are getting clobbered but the last time we lost a British tank to enemy fire was in the Battle of Imjin in the Korean War. Much depends on the quality of the tank, the crew, the tactical handling and the engineering and logistic support as to whether a nation will be successful with their tanks or not.
I agree that we should not make our tanks any heavier and protect them additionally with clever armour and APS.
I fully agree we should resurrect the TD concept – CVR(T) Striker has still not been replaced.

You forgot about the EU.

I agree. Britain needs multi-layered air defense for national defense (including Akrotiti, Gibraltar, and possibly the Falklands) as well as deployable assets for conflicts. Take a look at the new Stryker SHORAD variant with a 50KW laser that the US is soon to field. On paper they look very effective. I wonder how much those 50KW lasers will cost at a full production rate. For ballistic missile defense, I agree, either pony up the money for THAAD or develop a land-based Aster. It is a glaring hole: if there is a ballistic missile strike on an RAF base you can’t just nuke the offending country. Thankfully, it seems like this gap will be funded. Expensive stuff though.

Hmmm… perhaps someone should suggest to the Brits that aomeone w/in RAF or MoD hierarchy begin a quiet lobbying campaign to convince USAF to install US owned THAAD systems at one or more MOBs. Would probably reside below the cut line for unfunded priorities for a year it two before the light dawn’s on an intelligent Congressional staffer, but really, what is the downside of a parallel path of lobbying Uncle Sugar?

Really have to proofread these texts…someone…year or two…dawns…🙄. Autocorrect feature sometimes sabotages effort.

When you have the third largest defence budget on the planet you should not have to beg an Allie to provide basic defence for you. The UAE can afford THAAD, no reason the UK can’t get something similar. It’s primarily an issue of sovereign capability. The UK must retain the ability to act without US or any other countries input. Theatre level air defence and ABM is now moving from a bit of a gimmic or nice to have to a key part of the ability to operate in a modern war environment. The UK mainland does benefit from ABM systems in the Mediterranean and gulf operated by NATO and the US. However we have zero systems that we can deploy on a battlefield. Personally I would be against THAAD as it only provides ABM capability and not theatre level air defence. I fleet either SM3 or Aster variant would be more in with what we need.

Interesting, divergent perspective; any program I was associated w/ was always more than willing to leverage someone else’s funds, equipment, etc, and would probably consider it a management coup. From a strictly homeland defense perspective, If I was standing on the deck of the world”a largest aircraft carrier (aka the UK) w/ ballistic missiles inbound, I would probably not be overly concerned w/ the ownership of the ABM rounds, but rather grateful, if the threat was eliminated. Expeditionary battlefield coverage is admittedly an entirely separate issue. Again, interesting divergent perspectives; not passing judgment on validity of either…🤔

What he said 😀

What evidence do you have that CAMM cannot intercept ballistic missiles?

Good question. CAMM is the successor to Sea Wolf which is on record as having shot down an artillery shell, a supersonic very small target. It was a very good system. I would expect a CAMM to be capable of intercepting a large falling object like a ballistic missile warhead at a longer range than either Sea Ram or Phalanx.

I’ve never seen anyone claim it can; it’s not designed for this. As Netking said below, even MBDA has not claimed it can do so. Otherwise, using its range and theoretical ceiling, you can also deduce it wouldn’t be able to reliably intercept ballistic missiles, even in the terminal phase.

As I asked above, what evidence do you have that CAMM cannot intercept ballistic missiles?

Not answering for him but I haven’t seen the claim that it can intercept ballistic missiles made anywhere, not even from the vendor.

IIRC one of the issues with Patriot PAC-1 was not that it couldn’t intercept the old Scud, its that its warhead was to weak to do much against the BM, PAC-1 warhead is around 200lb of explosive, CAMM total weight is 218lb’s so warhead is likely to be even weaker.

The PAC 1 version of Patriot was primary designed to counter manned aircraft. It had a limited capability against ballistic threats. The PAC 2 version was designed from the outset as a anti-tactical ballistic missile system with a secondary anti-aircraft role.

With SCUD, you have to remember the missile is a one piece system. It doesn’t use stages. It is a bit like a V2 in that regard. So it has a lot of mass, starting at 4400kg for SCUD A up to 6500kg for SCUD D. However when the missile has past its apogee and burnt off all its fuel, its about half the weight.

Both the PAC 1 and PAC 2 versions of Patriot use missiles with semi-active radar homing (SARH), directed by the system’s PESA radar. For this reason the system always fired two missiles at a target. As it meant at least one of the missiles would have a good signal reflection from the manoeuvring target. It also meant the missiles had to rely on proximity fuzes to hit the target. As SARH can have relatively poor terminal effects when closing with the target.

The newer PAC 3 uses smaller missiles that have an active radar homer. So these have much better terminal effects even with a smaller warhead. As the Ka-band radar can pick out areas on the threat missile to target.

The issue with the PAC 1 and to some extents the PAC 2 missiles, was the missile’s proximity fuze. It detonated too late, so the SCUD passed the majority of the shrapnel cloud, this was sorted with a later PAC 2 upgrade.

CAMM is based on the ASRAAM. But introduces an active radar seeker instead of the imaging infrared, thrust vectoring and a data-link. The warhead is the same as ASRAAM’s. Therefore you would expect it to have negligible affects against a large ballistic missile. However, in tests the missile has proven to be a “hittle”. Where 9 times out of 10, it hits the target directly. The warhead will then detonate after it has struck the target.

So we have the combination of a Mach 3+ missile hitting another Mach 3+ missile and then detonating its warhead. Is this enough to take out something like a SCUD. Possibly, as the Navy won’t say. However, we know the Type 23 regularly uses CAMM successfully at live fire exercises against Banshee, Rattler and the larger Coyote target drones. Has it been used against Black Arrow ballistic targets, I suspect it has?

Again the Navy haven’t said anything. But as the conflict in Ukraine has shown, tactical ballistic missiles are a serious threat. Which currently only Patriot has proven to successfully shoot down in real combat. When it has been used to shoot down Yemeni Houthis ballistic missiles supplied by Iran and similar weapons fired by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.

A mixture that is sometimes seen is RAM + ESSM. The cold launch equivalent is CAMM + CAMM-ER. Canadian T26 is planning on CAMM + ESSM. T31 is based off an AAW heavy frigate that can go to 7,000+t. It should at least have one class of missile that can reach out to ESSM type ranges. If it gets mk41 or equivalent there are multiple hot launch options. Without it, CAMM-ER is the only longer range option.

Hi DM, South West something like THaaD has 100mile range so if you put it at those locations you cover most of major defence sites, you might couple more say IOM and Glasgow and i think it would cover good portion of country. Personally if it ever got back to that level i’d heading towards the biggest target as don’t think would want to be around after 🙁

Right, gotcha. I missed your BM mention my brain was thinking point/area defence.

would need Sky Sabre at every air base/HMNB and garrison for that as a min, would only provide limited civiy protection, If you put somethng like Patriot/iron Dome at same places would provide pretty good layered air defence but there is no way we will spend that much as there perceived threat is not high enough 🙁 by time it is will be too late

You can cover most of the UK major population centre as and military targets likely to be targeted with about 8 systems. That was not worth doing in the Cold War as the Soviets could send hundreds of missiles however in a modern context with just 1500 to use against the whole of NATO and two thirds of these being needed just to deal with just US nuclear weapons sights the UK might only get targeted by a few missiles and a dozen or so warheads. ABM systems become very worth while in those instances. The Russians have them guarding Moscow no reason we can do the same.

Hi QD, Lossiemouth, Marham, Conningsby/Waddington, Brize Norton & Devonport/South West, other was Isle of Man but Valley probably better. old habits always use airfield codes

Thanks Steve!

Agree. There’s always parallel technologies for similar requirements being developed by our allies as well as our potential adversaries plus real live conflicts exposing potential and actual gaps in our defences.

Yes especially if Aster Block II NT is incorporated in for ABM and we use the data targeting mods for E7 AEW. Then the UK is bomb proof for just a few billion. Seems like a bargain for a country spending $70 billion a year on defence.

Someone at the MOD or treasury hates the idea of mk41 on T45. Makes no sense.

Totally with you on this , even side silos besides the Asters. 24 CAMM is basically a 1 X RAM load +1. Talking of RAM, I’d like to see 1 or 2 of these linked in with the Phalanx’s on the QE carriers for a bit more of defensive armament with range. Or even adapt the Sea/Star Streak to fit in them.

I would say almost certainly if the navy gets more mk41 than the type 26 it will be on the type 31 , this was even hinted at by a navy head at a meeting of the commons defence committee. Any work on the type 45’s will be engine and air defence related

The SCALP EG that is British-French and is called Storm Shadow in service with the RAF?

How is QRA going to stop a missile though?

The idea is to intercept the launch platform of such Missiles, be it a heavy Bomber or Warship before they can be launched.

The weak point in the argument, is when faced against a coordinated multi-pronged strike using sub-launched cruise missiles and air launched.

Generally, Russian aircraft such as Bear and Backfire fly above 30,000ft, so ground based radar in Norway (Sweden and Finland now) will be able to track there initial progress until they fly west of Norway. But once they are past Iceland they will be lost, unless ships in the area or an aircraft spots them. They could and would most likely favour a cruise missile strike that comes in from the West of the Country, especially over Ireland, as they don’t have any long range ground based radar at all.

These air launched cruise missiles will initially fly quite high to conserve fuel, before diving to lower levels to try to avoid detection. So if we had a long range radar facing East it “might” be able to detect a swarm of missiles flying high. But as soon as they go lower, they will be flying undetected.

Similarly, when faced with sub-launch cruise missiles. Russia has the now well proven Kalibr cruise missile. It has a published range of 1000km. Although some reports give it a 1500 to 2000km range. Which means a Russian sub could, in theory, launch these weapons from Kalininrad and hit London. Where it would be flying the majority of its cruise flight at around 1000m altitude at Mach 0.8.

This means it won’t be continuously tracked by ground based radar, due to the Earth’s curvature. Which therefore necessitates AEW aircraft to maintain the track. To reach the UK from Kaliningrad they will likely be routed over Denmark, as it means the missiles then fly the majority of their flight over water, thereby making them much harder to detect and track.

I’m pretty sure Denmark has decent search radar, as it controls the international sea lanes through their Islands. Both Norway and Sweden also maintain decent radars in the southern half of their countries. So these missiles will likely be detected and tracked, with interceptors sent to engage them.

The UK will be informed by NATO that a cruise missile strike is heading their way from Denmark. So it will launch all its QRA aircraft, as I’m sure there will be a few leakers getting through NATO’s defences. The Typhoon will be guided by one of the three E7 Wedgetails, with one on training, whilst the other has just gone into maintenance,. The E7’s MESA radar unlike the earlier Sentry has no problem detecting and tracking the cruise missiles. Which it then gives guidance commands to its flock of Typhoons, who then use their Meteor missiles to take out the remaining cruise missiles.

Meanwhile, a fishing boat off the West coast of Ireland radios in a swarm of cruise missiles has just overflown his boat and flying towards the coast. Not until they approach Dublin and Aldergrove do medium range radars confirm the inbound vampires.

The RAF’s QRA Typhoons are out of position and with a significantly reduced missile count, will not be able to engage these new threats until they well over the Irish Sea. There may be a couple of Typhoons and Lightnings tooled up for a live firing exercise. But it will take the RAF too long to get the Meteors and ASRAAM from the bomb dumps, loaded on to the aircraft and launch available aircraft, before these cruise missiles start hitting their targets.

A T23, T26, T31 (T32?) and a T45 may be able to spin up its CMS due an urgent flash message and knock a few of these cruise missiles out, as they head for Plymouth and Devonport. But Roysth and Faslane are defenceless, as are Lossiemouth, Brize Norton, Cauldrose, Benson, Odiham, Mareham and Coningsby. Not to mention 90% of the Army barracks. Not to mention all of the UK’s strategic assets and manufacturers.

Only having 3 E7 Wedgetails compounds the problem. Ground based radar are great at detecting and tracking high flying aircraft and ballistic missiles. They can only track low flying aircraft and cruise missiles when they are generally within visual range. This is why it’s crucial to have AEW aircraft. As they can extend the radar horizon significantly.

But to combat a swarming attack you need to be able to move a lot of assets to an area really quickly or have them pre-located. This is the problem of over relying on the RAF’s QRA to handle multiple cruise missile threats. It would mean that at least half the Typhoon fleet need to be on constant QRA or be in a position to get rapidly tooled up in less than 30 minutes when required.

A much better plan would be to have a medium to long range surface to air missile system, that is always ready to use and that covers the whole of the UK and is networked within the UK’s air defence system.

The other glaring hole to fix is the gap over and beyond Ireland. Perhaps a bi-lateral defence pact would solve the issues. Where a ground based long range radar was situated on the West coast. It doesn’t have to be manned by UK personnel as the raw data can be fed to the UK to process. Where the UK is then allowed to engage threats coming from the West.

As to the missile system the obvious “off the shelf” choice would be a land based version of PAAMS, but based on Aster and Sampson. This is a combination already in UK service and keeps commonality and will reduce costs. However, it needs evolving along similar lines to the SM6 missile. Fit it with a Ka-band AESA radar, so it can target ballistic missiles better. Produce a much bigger booster for improved range and engagement altitude. But like SM6, develop a program where it can be controlled by a 3rd party, such as an AEW aircraft or a F35 for example.

Simples!

That was really helpful, Davey. Thanks!

Great post. One issue is the SM-6 has been successfully guided by data fed to it by an F-35 and an E-2D is past testing.

Thanks also DB, That was another good read!

Yes it is a fixed location, but it is a very useful location for either a trial or operational system. And it is existing and available to trial a concept, so why not try it.
There is a huge difference in size / weight / power requirements for heavy long range warning radars than the more mobile ones such as Giraffe. But you get more range, better target acquisition data and the most importantly time to react.
Let us just remember that the BMEWS is fixed as are such sites as GCHQ, Menwith hill etc.
All I am saying is use what we already have to provide a proper UKADGE with a layered system but including ASTER 30 2 for ABM.
The army and RAF will need something Mobile like SAMP-T and Sky Sabre with mobile Radars but maximise the cost / logistics efficiencies and buy more for U.K. deployment with heavy weight warning radars for greater range and interoperability with the RN.