Command of the United Kingdom’s ground-based air defence systems has transferred from the Royal Air Force to the Army.
In a release, the British Army say that Jt GBAD (Joint Ground Based Air Defence) was renamed to 7th Air Defence Group under the new Operational Command of the Army’s Force Troops Command.
7 AD Gp is equipped with the Rapier missile that has seen service in the Falkland Islands, the High-Velocity Missile and the LEAPP target identification system. It is soon to upgrade to the Sky Sabre anti-aircraft missile system which it will start to be introduced later in the year.
Speaking of the occasion Colonel Giles Malec, the Commander of the newly formed 7 AD Gp said:
“Although the command has passed to the Army the links to the Royal Air Force will continue. The Army is committed to growing the air defence capability over the coming years. There is a ten-year programme ahead to update our equipment with new missiles and radar systems; it will make our capability far more potent.”
The new 7 AD Gp is to relocate from the RAF Headquarters in High Wycombe to the home of the Royal Artillery’s air defence, Baker Barracks on Thorney Island near Chichester.
Yes, I learned of this a few weeks back.
Have always been curious why it was an Air Command formation and not an army one.
Comprises 3 Regiments: 16 RA with Rapier FSC, 12 RA with Starstreak, 106 ( Yeomanry )
( R ) and also 47 ( Inkerman ) Battery with the LEAP system.
This is vastly reduced from previously, like most other areas of the military, when there were two Rapier Regiments – 16 and 22 ( tracked ), two regular Starstreak Regiments – 12 ( Self Propelled on Stormer ) and 47 ( which is now a UAV formation ) and no less than 3 TA Regiments on Startstreak.
This needs to be remembered when they say “The Army is committed to growing the air defence capability” as the article says. They may be “growing” in capability in having more capable systems, but they are in smaller numbers than ever before.
Like other Brigades of Force Troops Command, the group HQ is more of an administrative formation and not a self contained deployable formation in its own right. The components of 7 ADG and other Force Troops Brigades are usually assigned to other formations, like our front line brigades.
It was run by the RAF as it was intended to simply be a defence system for Airbases and as such fell under the RAF Regiment responsibility. However the Falklands showed that there was a wider function for theses systems and so it was decided that it was therefore better to be under the control of the Army.
I don’t think that is quite correct. Rapier has always been a field system of the army deployed with our brigades in BAOR, even after the Falklands.
The RAF Regiment LLADS Low Level Air Defence Squadrons had long been disbanded for the airfield defence role. Years ago.
And the Falklands operation occurred way before this JGBAD was even thought of.
I do not think that is the reason at all.
That is an awful long time to introduce the lessons learned from the Falklands.
Cool, nice info Daniele ?
No worries mate.
I would love to see us purchase a theatre Wide GBA system like SAMP (t). Land ceptor is great but lack of theatre ballistic missile defence is the main capability missing from the British army and its increasingly important for deployed forces as ballistic missiles get better.
Do we have anything similar to the Russian S400 or US Patriot systems? Not an area I’m that familiar with.
Nothing. It’s been Rapier or even shorter range Starstreak, and before that Blowpipe, for many decades.
So here’s some questions.
Rapier is 45kg and goes mach 2 for 6km. Starstreak goes mach 3 for 6km but is only 14kg. If that is years of progress why does a CAMM weigh 7 times more than a Starstreak but only go 4 times further? How far would a 25kg Starstreak go and would it be any good?
And which is better a Starstreak or a Stinger? Could either of them be used as a CIWS unit or can that only be done with a cannon shell or a 80kg+ missile?
Comparing ranges of missiles is an exercise in futility. The key performance metrics are the engagement envelope and no escape zone.
Land Ceptor will have way more than 24km range. Asraam can reach out to 60km. Although Land Ceptor is ground launched it wlll be closer to that than 24km. Hopefully we’ll be looking at CAMM-ER when it is developed, which will go out to c80km with no changes to launch vehicles, radars or command vehicles.
Starstreak and Stinger do roughly the same job, although Starstreak is rarely seen away from its mount, it can be shoulder launched but in practice never is. Starstreak is in may ways superior, but is dependent on a highly trained operator to get the best out of it. In comparison the training requirements for Stinger are vastly lower.
As to CIWS, Starstreak was proposed for a CIWS system that was never developed, it would be good as its speed, acceleration, tungsten projectiles and spread of sub-munitions would be very useful against a missile.
Stinger has been carried on ships as self defence, but not in a mounting. The US and Germans took the seeker from Stinger and mounted it on the front of a Sidewinder rocket motor to create the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) which has been steadily superceding Phalanx mounts on a lot of USN vessels (and is also replacing the old Sea Sparrow capability).
The nearest system the uk is going to get to them is the medium range sky sabre system.
The UK never invested in long range air defense because it did not believe Russia could threaten UK airspace without fighting it’s way passed Norway or half of Europe first. That is why Poland and historically Germany purchased patriot.
With stealth UAV’s and Russia possessing its own TLAM the UK seriously needs to expand and upgrade its SAM arsenal. Sky Sabre will not cut it in my opinion against a long range stealth missile that hugs the terrain from 300km away.
I agree.
I don’t see why they can’t also integrate Aster 30 missiles into Sky Sabre to provide longer-range air defence. Seems a simple solution to me.
Only at sea, sea viper on T45 has similar capabilities to s400 or even s500 when the aster 30 NT comes on line. Black mamba SAMP t is the land based equivalent operated by France and Italy
Cutting more RAF units to save money I bet! And no doubt we will field less Sky Sabre units. It Seems odd that the RAF won’t have sky sabre, but I suppose the British millitray is working far closer together now so might not matter.. I hope.
Air defences were one of the easiest cuts for HMG. The last few decades have seen the UK in expeditionary campaigns against enemies who’s air power was either virtually negated or, in the case of AL Qaeda, ISIS, or the Taliban, none.
Now with a renewed emphasis on potential peer on peer confrontation air defence should be enhanced.
I think we all forget that Coalition forces were targeted by missile attacks by the Iraqi’s in GW2. Whilst not an ‘air power’ threat it is an aerial threat.
Do we know how many Sky Sabre units we’re actually getting?
No idea Steve R. I’d hope more than 20! That miniscule number could make 4 in each of the 4 batteries plus 4 spare in training reg at Larkhill.
Who knows 16 RA might have its batteries cut, would not surprise me.
This is an area that should be expanding!
Considering we’re the only European nation bar France that undertakes serious expeditionary manoeuvres it’s odd we don’t have patriot or similar to protect our forces.
Hiding behind the Americans?
Yeah I used to think that – I think the RAF’s choice to use interceptor aircraft for high altitude threats…there was Bloodhound during the Cold War, but when that was retired in the 1990s I suppose it was felt there wasn’t any reason to develop a high altitude SAM system when there were no credible threat to defend against.
Now I guess the thinking is that in the event of a major conflict overseas where the enemy has a half-decent air force, we will be operating alongside the Americans/NATO and they will bring Patriot with them, as happened in the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion.
In the rare occasions when we’re operating on our own, if the conflict zone is anywhere near the sea then the Navy’s Type 45s should be able to provide decent protection, in conjunction with the carrier air group.
On a side note, what would be an amazing capability for fleet air defence would be for Crowsnest to be able to direct missiles from the Type 45s onto target via datalink, for times when a ship is operating close to land and their shipboard radars’ range is reduced, or to better cope with sea-skimming missiles. But maybe that’s unnecessary as we wouldn’t want to risk parking a Type 45 so close to land in the first place…
I read that very thing the other day somewhere on UKDJ. I think Davey and another were discussing Crowsnest – Link16 – Viper.
I think the USN are experimenting on it with the Advanced Hawkeye, having it cue targets for both fighter aircraft and CGs and DDGs. But what I see as the bonus of Crowsnest for this kind of thing is its ability to be deployed on surface combatants operating independently from the carrier battle group (not that we have the hulls anymore for this, but still it’s nice to dream!)
Hi Mate, The Crowsnest/Link16/Viper is a follow-on development of the E3D/Link16/AMRAAM trial that Typhoon had conducted a few years back. This is where the Typhoon is operating in a passive mode using the E3D for target searching. When the E3D detects a threat, a command was sent to the Typhoon which fired the missile in the threat’s detection. The E3D would send guidance updates to the Typhoon which would then send updates to the missile all via Link 16. This tactic proved successful except for the “delay” updating the threat’s information through the Typhoon. A further trial was done where the E3D took control of the missile and directly fed it guidance updates. The trial was done against standard non-stealthy drones due to the limitations of the E3D’s radar, with the newer E7 and Meteor’s two way data link more stealthy targets can be targeted. The same style of trial have been done in the US with F22/Typhoon and F35/Typhoon combinations. The F35 can use either its Link16 or its multi-function advanced data link (MADL). The MADL has over four times the bandwidth of the current Link 16, uses more stealthy waveforms and has a degree of directivity unlike the the omni directional Link16.
If we go ahead a few years where a carrier task group is operating. The F35 will be able to send data back via its Link16 as I don’t believe the Crowsnest equipped Merlins or the ships will be getting MADL. The same threat data is fed back to the ships, so that a T45s Aster can be used. The US Arliegh Burkes (fitted with MADL) have successfully done trials with F35s, which did both target search and designation. The F35 took control of the ESSM giving it guidance updates before it went active.
There we go! Cheers Davey.
Ah cool – cheers Davey that’s really interesting. Out of interest, how much of a disadvantage in terms of missile lethality would it be for our aircraft to rely on Link16 instead of MADL for target cueing? Is it a tremendous loss in capability not to add MADL to Crowsnest and T45s, or given how we operate is the difference negligible?
As I have said above the F35 uses is MADL as a discrete data link so has a very low probability of being intercepted. The Link16 uses an omni-directional antenna so anybody with the right gear can be detect and triangulate the signal source. The difference between MADL and Link16 is like comparing the data throughput of 4G with 2G. A complex string of data is transmitted by both systems, but it takes a lot longer. The main difference would be that with a MADL datalink multiple threats could be dealt with concurrently, with Link16 they may have to be dealt with sequentially. If the threats have to be dealt with sequentially this allows them in turn to get closer to the asset you are defending.
I thought when they had the NATO meeting in Cardiff they parked HMS Dragon in the harbour to provide SAM cover.
The RAF maybe don’t want to get involved in more missile stuff because it interferes with Tempest. With the increase in Russian and other threats maybe the MOD wants cover for expeditionary and overall UK home defence. With so small a landmass, thinking maybe that the UK could achieve this cover relatively economically and free up RAF for greater things. With interface using a combo of RN and Army assets might work quite effectively?
It seems to me that the logic of defending the ground you hold should naturally go to the Army. That places the missiles in the UK, Overseas territories and bases and perhaps shows a move post Brexit to place the responsibility & cost of defense back to European countries. Defenses for our own troops abroad must be deployed with our troops. It also suggests a modernisation programme for the Army to ensure it is properly equipped for its future role. Does this make sense anyone?
My thinking is whilst wide area of defence coverage would be ideal, we are never going to be able to cover the whole UK or the whole forward deployment, and so with a limited budget you want to cover your key points and then rely on fighters to provide the wider coverage. This way the key point are covered against surprise cruise missile attacks, which a are realistically the only ones that would be targeted considering the cost per missile.
The issue with this thinking is that we don’t seem to have enough rapiers / sky saber to cover all the key points (air bases and radar stations plus probably main military bases) and with ever decreasing number of bases, a surprise attack wiping out most of the defensive assets becomes a more realistic strategy and so reliance on land based air defence more important.
Additionally the biggest threat to the army has to be attack helicopters, chewing through any formation and defence against this threat seems lacking. Saying that wide area defence isn’t the solution as hills etc would easily mean radar lock/tracking from range would be impossible, so a focus on more mobile and cheaper air defense is needed. The issue is sky sabre isn’t that and we don’t have enough starstreak units, which we could do with investing in over something like patriot.
The other point with all of that Steve is that as things stand the Rapier / Sky Sabre and Starstreak assets we do have are field formations deployed with the army in the field, wherever our Brigades will be, so will their attendant air defence battery.
There is no area or point defence of UK installations at all, and the only example where there is is the Rapier Battery of 16 RA which is on roulment in the Falkland Islands and defending MPA.
To me this makes sense, other than the lack of coverage in the UK. Perm units should at least be based at the main radar stations, which if taken out would have a serious impact on our ability to defend the UK.
Mention of the Falklands however reminds me that a key part of the war was the placement of the rapiers by helicopter in forward deployed defensive locations. Ok they didn’t work due to poor design/placement (couldn’t target/ shoot downwards), but the idea/tactic was sound, sothe question is how would this be achieved in 2019, once rapier goes out of service, as I understand sky sabre is too heavy for lifting.
That’s the crux Steve. There are not enough assets as it is to give the field formations comprehensive air defence, let alone back in the UK at key sites.
To some degree I disagree with this decision as historically the Army is a mobile force whilst the Airforce is predominantly a fixed force. This means the Army’s focus is fixed on its deployments and perhaps not defending the home. The RAF until recently was primarily a UK and NATO defence asset. It has only been the last 30 years that the RAF has re-embraced contingency operations again i.e. deploying as a force overseas.
The Army’s SAMs of the past like Thunderbird were designed to be mobile so that they could defend the Army in the field from medium to high altitude bombers. Whilst the RAF’s Bloodhounds was originally designed to be fixed so that it could protect the V bomber force. The plethora of medium to high altitude missiles dictated a change to low level bombing tactics which led to the development of Rapier and strategically to ballistic missiles. The Government at the time decided that the Soviet Bloc having swapped its main nuclear delivery to ballistic missiles, believed SAMs were redundant and no further development of Army/RAF medium to high altitude SAMs were funded. It was only the Navy that really kept development going. The Bloodhound 3 development was supposed to be a longer range SAM designed to counter ballistic missiles using a nuclear warhead but this was cancelled.
Today, medium to high altitude bombing is back in fashion, as are the use of both conventional ballistic and cruise missiles. The new Sky Sabre being a land version of Sea Ceptor is an excellent missile system and provides area protection compared to Rapier’s local protection. However, it has a limited service ceiling so won’t be able to deal with high flying aircraft. It has a very fast response time and multiple target acquisition to deal with swarming threats. However, the real protection for front line troops against helicopters and UAVs is the Starstreak system, either vehicle mounted or used by infantry. Starstreak’s only disadvantages are that it can only target one aircraft at a time and being a manpad derivative has limited range and ceiling.
The Sky Sabre system uses SAAB’s Giraffe frequency agile radar for searching and tracking and can be networked with other Sky Sabre systems. It is designed so that it can be operational in 20 minutes when deployed, which means it can only operate from a fixed location and not on the move. The MAN HZ77 trucks that are being used for the missile carrier, radar and command module are too heavy to be airlifted by a Chinook (11 to 12 tons max lift), so will need to be road moved or strategically moved by Herc etc. I don’t think we are buying enough batteries that will be able to cover high value UK targets as well as deployed army groups.
I do believe that the Sky Sabre system should be Army controlled and go wherever the Army goes. The UK should operate a fully layered defence system, starting with aircraft flying combat air patrols, followed by medium to long range missiles, with a point defence system as the goal keeper. Therefore the UK requires a missile system that defends high value targets, airfields, ports and infrastructure. The current reliance on Typhoons to continuously counter large scale attacks will not be enough. We do not have enough T45s to allow them to roam around the coast, where they should be embedded as part of a task group.
The obvious choice is the land based version of PAAMS, but using the Aster 30 Block 1NT and Block 2 BMD missiles (1500km to 3000km range). If the system is linked to the Fylingdales and Wedgetail radar this will give the necessary early warning against both ballistic and cruise missile threats, that would cover most of the country. Perhaps, if we got this system it should be tri-service as it would be strategic asset.
Therefore, the RAF require a system that can be used to defend airfields that operates in the short to goal keeper range. Sky Sabre is the obvious choice, but there won’t be enough of these to go round. In this day of penny pinching there must be a solution…..
Excellent post. Thanks Davey.
Yep, no where near enough batteries in 16 RA to cover the army and the the UK.
I think each off our current 4 Rapier FSC batteries has 6 Fire Units?
Will be interesting to see how many Sky Sabre are being procured.
Personally I’d have the RAF operate any home based SAM system and the Army control expeditionary based field deployed systems, as is the case now.
I think we had a long range system in the passed called Bloodhound 2 with a 180km range and M2,6. It was there to protect the UK against Russian nuclear bombers. However after nukes were put onto BMs the SAM was retired. It strikes me that with a resurgent Russia and their cruise missiles we should do as other countries (France, Spain etc), and restore this gap in our air defence. A new system could also perform ABM defence. Keep Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre for short/medium range and and upgraded Aster30 for long range.
It is very sad that the UK does not spend tge cash to put in place defence that other countries take for granted! You would not see France cutting corners like tge UK is doing,
Rob
It seems crazy to me that we have no medium to long range SAM capability in the UK, either for our forces overseas when on operations or in the UK to be able to protect important sites at home.
Aster 30 has a range of up to 120km; I don’t see why we can’t use the land based version as well. It already exists so may as well use it.
Or if we want our own indigenous one, perhaps a land-based adaption for Meteor?
I agree it is crazy… all the other European powers have long range systems. However the UK government is too short sighted and penny pinching to give the UK credible air defence.
Aster would be fine – I like the idea of Land Meteor.
Rob
Agreed I often want see the nasam system 2 with meteor MK2 (upgrade to engine and Japanese aesa with option booster modular for land) for RAF air defence and military port replace bloodhound 2.
I not sure if they was originally plan replace bloodhound 3 with extended range and high speed use ramjet upgrade in end cancelled due cold war end.
Also I would like see aster 30 block 2 (aster 45) for anti ICBM defence at UK land based and type 45 as Chinese and some other nationality got ICBM anti-ship since they don’t sign 300km limited range high speed missiles we need wholes range to defend each threat as first line defence with second line with camm then dragonfire and phoenix ciws as last line defence.