Ground Based Air Defence is currently the professional responsibility of the gunners of the Royal Artillery in 3 regular Regiments and one TA. 16 Regiment operate the Rapier Field Standard C and the other two (12 and 47) operate the Starstreak High Velocity Missile. As the Stormer mounted HVM is being withdrawn 47 Regiment have re roled to the Desert Hawk and the TUAV (Watchkeeper) and 12 Regiment also operate the Desert Hawk.
It is clear then that ground based air defence is a relatively neglected activity, yet more evidence that those Cold War relics have been in the process of being binned off for quite some time. One has to ask if there is still a need for ground based air defence when in every conflict since 1982 any airborne threat has been neutralised before ground operations have commenced. That said, 1982 is a salutary lesson in the consequences of operating in an environment where air attack is still possible and your defences are no more than average.
We must still be able to deal with every eventuality if we are to maintain a flexible force but the most likely threat in future conflicts is not Migs streaking in at low level but enemy UAVs.
The technology is maturing at a frightening rate and with this growth in production volume and capability will be proliferation in a wide range of state and non state actors. Hezbollah have already used rudimentary UAV’s and there are many models available now, commercially of the shelf, that can be deployed after only a few hours training.
When used in their traditional role of gathering intelligence they can negate many of the advantages that Western forces currently enjoy. Unconventional forces have shown an increasing capability in adapting commercial technologies for military use, triggering IED’s in Iraq with remote control garage door openers or mobile telephones is a good example. Taking one of these commercial UAV’s and loading it up with a couple of grenades or even a chemical agent is not beyond the realms of the possible. With assistance from rogue nations, even more sophisticated systems may be deployed against us.
The threat has clearly changed but there is still a need, albeit it at a reduced level, for ground based air defence against conventional aircraft and helicopter threats.
In the man portable or light vehicle role the HVM, either in MANPAD mode or with the triple clip on launcher is still relevant. It provides light forces with an effective short range anti aircraft capability. The heavier Stormer vehicle based system is being withdrawn anyway and this is the right decision.
Rapier FSC is still a very effective system and has the advantage of portability. Due to replace it is the Common Anti Air Modular Missile that is derived from the RAF’s ASRAAM, the basis of the Future Local Anti-air Defence (FLAADS) available in Land and Maritime flavours. This will replace Rapier and Sea Wolf; a fantastic idea that makes so much sense it is hard to believe we are still actively pursuing it and a good example of the benefits to be had from ‘ruthless commonality’
Instead of three missiles we have one, maybe with the odd minor change to suit the environment but still largely the same so we can benefit from a single logistics and maintenance stream. Current plans call for it to be truck mounted; another contender for my modular launch container concept that could be used by round and maritime forces. The system has a great deal of export potential as many nations start to replace legacy systems after squeezing every last drop of usefulness out of them and we should make sure that the funding stream remains in place.
Missile based systems are expensive and directed at high value targets like aircraft, helicopters and even cruise missiles but against small UAV’s they are overly expensive. It would be very easy in an asymmetric conflict to rapidly diminish missile ready stocks by swarming expendable UAV’s at a deployed force.
To counter the UAV threat we need a gun based system, ammunition is cheaper than missiles and the air bursting ammunition has a very high likelihood of hitting the target, the slightest of hits likely to render the UAV unusable.
The low rate of fire of the CTA 40mm canon might rule it out of an anti air mission but with the right ammunition, possibly based on the Rheinmetall AHEAD system it might still be effective. Combining this with an off the shelf fire control system would create a system that again, might be deployable on land or at sea. Alternatively, we could simply buy the Rheinmetall Skyranger 35mm system. In a previous post I discussed the possibility of buying into Rheinmetall base protection system (C-RAM), based on the 35mm revolver cannon and AHEAD ammunition and this would also be the same as that used for counter UAV. The current 20mm Centurion (click the link and turn the volume up) and Phalanx systems are facing issues of obsolescence and now might be a good time to upgrade both land and naval systems. The Rheinmetall system is available in a turreted or towed configuration so could be deployed in different types of brigades and with the Royal Marines as required.
If we could use the CTA 40mm for this role the advantages of commonality are obvious but in this case it might be a push too far, the Rheinmettal systems is available off the shelf and has excellent performance.
Organisationally, we should reconsider single system regiments and create composite units that would have elements of all systems, similar to the single TA air defence regiment, 106 Regiment. Two multi system air defence regiments would be equipped with the full range of systems and the third, the TA regiment would still be retained. These Regiments would find utility in all spectrums of conflict and not have to find alternative roles when we are engaged in one type of conflict or another. High intensity they would be using CAMM, counter insurgency they operate in C-RAM and counter Improvised UAV mode (IUAV, is that a new acronym?)
Summary
Air defence is still vital if we are retain any aspiration to being a serious military force but the threat, as ever, is changing and the Counter Rocket and Mortar and Counter AUV mission is now as important and more likely to be experienced. Our air defence capabilities must therefore change and creating a capability that has common elements with other services makes sense in many ways.
Short Term
- Continue with withdrawal of Stomer based HVM
- Continue funding CAMM
- Retain Rapier FSC
Medium Term
- Investigate air defence feasibility for CTA 40mm canon
- Introduce CAMM in common modular container based system for land and naval use
- Introduce C-RAM and C-UAV gun based system
- Form 2 Regular and 1 TA composite air defence regiments
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
31 Comments
Your plan has some merit, but I think it is missing the final element, some form of long range SAM. If the RAF reduces fighter loads at certain areas, northern Scotland and the Falklands, to minimum levels, those airbases will need more than point defenses to be adequately protected. More basically, the CAMM does not appear to have the dynamic ability to engage targets at high altitude.
This actually is an opportunity for a British company, no other European or American land based SAM system, that I know of, will have an appreciable range and altitude combination. Essentially, this emphasis on low altitude SAMs will just drive the enemy to a relatively safe and accessible high altitude attack.
If this mythical SAM is developed some time in the future, it could actually serve to reduce the need for fighter interceptions or lessen the reliance on fighters, as the SAM could track targets of interest and leave the fighters available for other missions.
CTA40 as an A/D weapon is an interesting proposal, although the 35mm revolver cannon has an RoF of ~1000RPM despite the fact that the CTA shell is approx 2x the weight of 35×228 it’s also approx 1/4 of the RoF so Skyshield offers a volume of fire twofold that of a like for like CTA40mm weapon although it would extend the kill range of the weapon by a healthy margin… Developing a high RoF 40CT system
This said it’s general projectiles EG:HE that weigh ~1KG for 40CT opposed to ~550G for the 35×228 however 35AHEAD projectiles weigh in the region of 750g whether a 40CT-AHEAD shell could be similarly proportioned remains to be seen
It’s hard not to bring up Naval systems aswell, whether it’s a 40CT or 35×228 solution it makes a great deal of sense to extend this commonality to the senior service replacing 30mm ASCG (just to clarify this isn’t a idiotic proposal to replace the bushmaster II with 1000rpm guns, rather than with a similar Bushmaster III or 40CT gun) ASWELL as the CIWS
Great post!
ArkadyRenko:
If the UK decided it could afford a Long range SAM it would come in the guise of off the shelf Patriot batteries from the US or more likely SAMP/T Aster 30 based solution… something I wanted to see for a fairly long time before eventually coming to the conclusion it’s one of those things that are quite low down on priorities, the money is always needed elsewhere first.
PS: I said something about a high RoF 40CT gun, I think i was going to write something of how it would be an engineering nightmare/almost unfeasible but forgot what I was doing half way through.
Admin, yes, a great post, I agree.
Just some comments:
Short term
If the withdrawal of the Stormer HVM is to be continued, can you see any use for the Stormer vehicles themselves, or are they simply to be “cast”, as so many useful pieces of kit have been in recent years. If refurbished, they would surely make excellent recce vehicles for light formations.
How far off is CAMM? I think I read a date of 2020 for its entry into service. We must retain adequate missiles until then or could CAMM be expedited?
The retention of RAPIER is a fine idea. It will certainly be needed in the Falklands and has a superior range and ceiling to HVM. ArkadyRenko has a point, though, about long-range missiles. If many fighter squadrons are withdrawn, we shall certainly need something like those.
Medium term
The introduction of a C-RAM and C-UAV gun based system would be excellent. More mobile than CENTURION (?) and defence of bases is becoming increasingly important. The Germans have already bought a few, haven’t they, with more to follow?
The creation of composite regiments is a first-rate idea. I had not realized that the TA regiments were so, until I looked up the MOD Army site. They could have elements of all three systems: RAPIER, HVM and C-RAM/C-UAV.
I think Rapier is due out of service in 2020 as CAMM comes in (hopefully)
CAMM seems to be one of those projects just moving along without any fanfare, building on existing technology and with an operational concept that makes so much sense it actually give you some encouragement that the MoD is finally seeing the benefit of cross service development.
I suspect the Stormers will be cast, theres a term I haven’t heard for a while Mike! but they might be useful if used for something else in the interim, don’t think they have had anywhere near the hammering that CVR(T) has had.
I am not always a fan of composite regiments with light and medium weight systems but the problem we have now is that if you are not in Afghanistan as a formed unit you are under the microscope and having to find other roles, filling in etc. By giving a Regiment a role in all spectrums of conflict you are making them relevant
In the pursuit of “ruthless commonality” we should, perhaps, bring Maritime AD into this thread.
We’re all agreed CAAMM as Sea Wolf and Rapier replacement.
What about LMM? Could it be developed to provide a genuine inner layer missile defence similar to RAM? Could that provide a missile based alternative to C-RAM/RAM in both land and maritime environments?
Regarding guns, unfortunately, I don’t think 40 mm CTA gun can provide the basis of a C-RAM system. It just does not have the rate of fire.
If a 30mm Gatling gun were to be adopted that, at least, would provide common ammunition with RN Goalkeeper and Bushmaster based DS30 Mk2.
Which leaves the 40mm CTA gun an orphan.
I’m probably fairly conventional with fast air defences, I dont think its something we should devote that much to, destroy enemy air bases, shoot down with our own fast air, if anything gets through, manpads.
Maybe vehicle mounted manpads…. but not some vain attempt to get a truck mounted Grass Viper.
Either we control the skies and a better air defence wont accomplish much because theres nothing to accomplish, or the enemy controls the skies, and a better air defence wont accomplish much because they’ll blow them up.
I’ve searched, but I cant find any casualities the Argentine Airforce caused the British Army once it deployed, plenty when they hit badly defended ships, bit none once the men had deployed, dispersed and dug in.
I’m sure there must have been some, just on principle, but I cant find any.
Not sure why I submitted that, I wasnt finished.
Although systems like C-Ram are quite cool, I’m not sure they’re viable in wave attacks, they get three bursts before they need reloading, not much use against 100+ IUAV’s (Yep, thats a new one you’ve created).
Rifleman with a MkI eyeball?
Could you mount a naval gun on a vehicle and use it like a big shotgun?
I suppose the question to ask, though, Dominic, is just how many Argentinian aircraft our own air defences accounted for while the battle for air supremacy took place (and that lasted quite a long time in the Falklands). That is the key time when air defence is vital.
My memory of the time is hazy (afer all, it was nearly thirty years ago) but I seem to remember quite a few ‘hits’ on enemy aircraft by our own land-based defence missiles (Rapier and Blowpipe (?)) and those would have helped protect the soldiers who had landed. I also remember that twenty-four .5 Browning machine guns were sent down to the islands as air defence and after the campaign they were issued to some infantry regiments to serve partly in that role.
The question is also raised of what you do in a conflict where you cannot attack the enemy’s air bases. For political, diplomatic reasons and perhaps for military ones too, in that campaign we did not attack the enemy’s air bases in Argentina.
Mike W
I’m not averse to all air defences, I just think land based ones should be limited.
Bit of a waste trying to build something like the S300, they never work.
The rest was two questions.
Lack of Capability, well, be capable.
If we use the falklands as an example, last time we couldnt attack their airbases, but if a round two kicked off, its a perfect role for the Astutes.
If theres a political reason you cant attack the airfields, you can still shoot down the aircraft with your own.
There are of course limits to what the rest of the world will allow us to get away with, but bombing a military airstrip during a war is hardly something anyone can reasonaby protest against
It is an interesting post and one I have commented on before, I think ground based air defence is a much ignored subject. I agree the threat dynamic has changed but for the worse and our AD are not up to it and verging on obsolete.
The threats now are standoff weapons which China ,Russia & Israel are selling to anyone with a few dollars to spare they can be truck, helicopter, UAV or aircraft mounted and have a range of +10kilometers so you won’t even see the vehicle that kills you.
This is the death knell of Heat seeking/ optical systems SHORAD weapons and the future is Radar guided C-RAM weapons such as the SKYSHIELD gun system for close range and CAMM for distance.
HVM
Still useful as a MANPADS weapon and should be kept
STORMER HVM
I regard this as obsolete as it is a lot of weapon system that has fallen behind technology, its missiles are outranged by HELLFIRE, SPIKE etc, but can’t hit them if launched being guided by eye, (don’t think the stinger, mistral etc based systems would be much better)
RAPIER
Although I regard this weapon highly it has come to the end of its useful life, if they kept the tracked rapier and updated it I would have been happy. Its range is far too short for a semi –fixed system again outranged by the newer precision guided weapons.
I suggest the following:
1) Keep HVM MANPADS and update the missile
2) Buy SKYSHIELD gun system and mount them on the ASCOD variant, a battery of 4 to each armoured battalion for C-RAM protection.
3) Replacement of Rapier and Stormer with CAMM, but individually mounted like the new Crotale NG missile system so it can keep up with the mobile divisions not left protecting bases. That should be be left to a SKYSHIELD/CAMM gun/missile system.
4) Purchase a long range missile system like SAMP/T for area coverage and ABM defense.
The Russians and to some extent the Americans have the right idea to have to a layered defence, BTW the Argies tried to use napalm on troops in the Falkland’s but luckily they missed.
I attempted to write a comment response, but decided against it and chose to write a topic of my own.
This is how it looks when I approach the topic of army protection against air power:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/07/protection-against-air-power-army.html
The article basically sums up what I had been writing on the subject before, not much news on my part.
IanB:
There’s nothing wrong with StarStreak HVM to need “updating”
SPAAG is old hat, too expensive and too much on logistics to worry about today… not only that who wants that Crock of **** ASCOD anyway? you couldn’t turn it into a recce vehicle in a month of fridays but that’s another matter/
SAMP/T… tell us where the spare funds are(after first fixing everything that’s more important than a long range SAM [largely regarded as a luxury] which is quite far down on the list, just above counter-anti-ABM weapons) and the MoD will purchase it.
SPAAG against fast movers may be old hat, but the modern concept for AAG, be it SP or otherwise, is as a CRAM or CUAV system. Here, the targets are too small, too hard or too fast, or a combination of the three, for missiles to be effective. Gun systems (or even lasers) can respond quickly enough and cover enough area to effectively engage the targets.
Out of interest, Requiem, what is your issue with ASCOD? Personal experience? Access to key data?
The Stormer could be used as a recce vehicle as it has a fairly sophisticated suite of thermal sensors. Use the HVM launcher to fire LMMs or HVMs (Starstreak carries a substantial amount of KE and can be fired at anything that you can see) which would give some long-ranged capability against soft and light armoured targets.
I don’t think that a high ROF version of the 40mm CTA cannon is feasible but that doesn’t mean that a 40mm revovler cannon or gatling couldn’t be designed to use the same ammunition – oerlikon designed a twin barrelled 42mm revolver cannon in the fifties in response to a british requirement so there is nothing new in the idea of a relatively large calibre, high ROF gun.
The 40mm CTA round has some advantages in terms of space saving while having ballistic performance similar to a 40mm L70 bofors.
Requiem:
I only used ASCOD as it IS the vehicle being bought like it or not, it doesn’t really matter whether its CV90, Warrior, Boxer or FV432 that the gun is mounted on.
“There’s nothing wrong with starstreak HVM to need updating, yes there is -‘SHORT RANGE (5.5km)’ that’s why they have developed Starstreak II (7km).
HELLFIRE- 8km
BRIMSTONE-12km
MAVERICK-28km
SPIKE ER-8km
SPIKE NLOS -25KM
LAHAT-8km
NIMROD-36km
NAG-7km
AT-12 SCALLION-10km
And that’s not to mention LGB, Standoff missiles and other precision guided weapons!!
With these weapons a 40 year old ex soviet helicopter like the MIL-2 can become a potent tank killer.
You were right in saying that standard SPAAG’s had their day but with these threats the C-RAM type AHEAD systems as a point defence is becoming more crucial.
As for the SAMP/T, how we fund it I don’t know but we must otherwise our boys will die in considerable numbers when we get into the next conflict with someone who can actually shoot back.
I am afraid you and the MOD are alone in this most of Europe has bought Patriot and is either replacing it with the new version, buying SAMP/T ,ARROW or MEADS, and the Russians are flogging their SAMs to anyone.
Overlapping AD is needed, SAMP/T for medium/long range, CAMM for short/medium range, Starstreak for short range, SKYSHIELD for point defence, then active electronic counter measures.
I would be happy to hear your future threat appraisal and prove my assumptions wrong.
Theatre level air defence is a classic area where an alliance/partner/NATO capability would make sense
IanB
Who could the the UK go to war with that actualy could shoot back?
At the moment, air dominance is a have or dont.
I’ve recently been using Egypt and its F16 fleet as a reason the carriers are useless, but actualy, they’d have a reasonable chance, outnumbered 6 to one
Don’t have a crystal ball but on a sliding scale from high to low where we might be dragged in would be:
1)Iran
2)North Korea
3)Pakistan
4)Falklands
5)Baltic states
6)Greece – Turkey
all very well armed & equiped. The only places like Afganistan would be Yemen and Somilia but any Government would be insane to go there.
Although i agree we need to build up our light brigades into a effective COIN/Peacekeeping force with the appropiate equipment
IanB
4 of those would be primarily prosecuted by carrier air, but are at best a generation behind us, none of them could put up a fight against just one of our carriers, never mind a likely coalition.
The Baltic against russia would difficult alone, but a nato coalitoon would end the Russian airforce in the first few days unless it let us more or less run riot.
Russia on paper has 1200 combat aircraft, but half of them are from the vietnam era, putting them up against typhoons would be madness
@IanB: WW2 battleships were able to fire 30 km far, but the longest recorded hit was at about 26 km and some BB vs. BB engagements began only at about 19 km.
Their theoretical range was so unimportant that it’s rarely documented in today’s books about BBs.
The theoretical range doesn’t mean much. Even air/ground radars with GMTI and SAR capability offer no practical fire control capability against dispersed vehicles. You cannot identify at long distances and most combat aircraft can only scan the forward area, thus they’re flying towards the target area at a high speed. The crews have only few seconds for spotting and identifying a target before an aircraft needs to turn away to keep the stand-off distance.
It’s all quite complicated. The theoretical range of munitions alone does not cut it. You would need a kind of forward observer to exploit such ranges.
Sven,
If thats the case why is every bugger spending huge amounts of money on targeting pods and illuminators such as Litening and Wescam and manufactures are developing long range anti-tank missiles (TOW (5km) OUT Hellfire (10km)et al IN.)
I know they have better capabilities but you still wont get one without a +8km range.
If i was a chopper pilot i would know your SHORAD preformance and just sit outside of it and take you out.This was done in the Falklands when the argies had the Seadart performance envelope and worked out countermeasures which proved successful just by the lack of the system kills.
I do agree with you with the need for a FOO but again networked target illuminators/GPS are becoming cheaper and more readily available.
TOW hasn’t got 5 km range. The typical figure is 3.75 km.
The range is the product of speed. You want fast missiles, and those don’t lose all their velocity at the end of the practical range. A missile with a practical range of 3 km can easily have an official range of 7 km.
Hellfire is for example supersonic – no wire restricts its speed. Now guess: how much range would a supersonic projectile of Hellfire’s empty weight have? Several km. That surplus range is a by-product of the desire to have a fast missile within the practical range.
This effect is even amplified in missiles against air targets because those need a lot of kinetic energy and/or a long rocket burn time in order to retain a useful agility.
The expenditures on high-end infra-red sensors (and none of them has a practical range like 10 km!) can easily be explained with the need for high resolution imagery for identification purposes. You cannot shoot on everything that moves or is warmer than its surroundings. You need to identify it. Everyone who’s seen a moving bush (camouflaged AFV) on a training range can understand the extreme target ID challenges even at 500 m distance. A U.S. A-10A pilot attacked a platoon of AAAVs in 2003 because he misunderstood these extremely unique and huge AFVs for very distinctive BMPs – on open terrain.
The overwhelming majority of NATO’s armour and artillery “kills” in Kosovo 1999 were hits on decoys (and a few civilian vehicles!).
There’s also the distorting influence of the desert wars against Iraqi targets. The Iraqis had no concealment, used no real camouflage, had no really effective (survivable) AD and had many other traits that spell question marks on anti-Iraqi fores experiences. Nevertheless, it was possible to engage them at long distance because of the flat, featureless terrain.
The requirements process for ATGMs includes an assessment of typical visual ranges. Many missile types (examples Milan, Javelin, Metis) were meant for up to 2 km range because you rarely get a longer field of fire than that. HOT and TOW had longer ranges because there’s a highly theoretical duel advantage of very long range weapons and because ZSU-23-4 would have been too deadly against helicopters with 2 km missiles.
“If i was a chopper pilot i would know your SHORAD performance and just sit outside of it and take you out.”
Great. Now explain me please how you want to detect all 5 km ShorAD systems in a 5 km radius. Even a half circle is still 15.7 km2.
This is where theory and practice collide. You cannot detect a ManPADS team with any significant reliability in such a large area unless you’re over a desert. Even the Longbow radar can’t do that.
That’s why ManPADS are so useful for pushing hostile air power to higher altitudes; altitudes from where the target detection and ID challenge is even greater.
Your Sheffield example points at a completely different topic in battlefield air defence; sometimes you need to intercept the munition instead of the platform.
MANPADS have pushed aircraft higher no doubt about that but then the counter has also evolved to meet the challenge of more difficult target ID and reliable post strike assessment. The targeting pod, UAV’s and ground terminals all mean that the traditional requirement for getting in low has now more or less disappeared. A good example is the RAF Tornado anti runway missions in Iraq using JP233, they got hammered but with the advent of PGM’s could operate at medium altitude and still deliver the same affect. In Afghanistan, the only time fast jets drop down low is a show of force, its not because of the threat by and large, its because they dont need to and the accuracy of PGM’s tend to increase with altitude.
Indeed, but you cannot detect much from 15,000 ft once you face competent foes on a cluttered terrain.
Even very active armour battalions don’t move much more than a few hours per day – they can make themselves invisible to air power about 16-24 hrs/day depending on their operation.
Infantry can be practically invisible to air power almost all the time. Their preferred terrain is closed terrain (settlements, forests) anyway and man-sized targets are very, very small (and difficult to discern from civilians).
Even runways and airfield facilities can be impossible to identify once the squadrons move to improvised airfields.
Again; Iraq is no good benchmark.
I do think we neglect ground based Air-defence at our peril. As we speak most of our European colleagues already have and are about to upgrade their existing air-defence systems, most of which are highy mobile. We on the other hand have largely stood still. The only truly mobile system is the HVM/Startreak misile fitted to the Stormer. The is is only system that can move with mechanised forces and being instantly available should a threat be detected.
Rapier’s performance the the Falklands was at best patchy. It takes in combat terms an eternity to set up. When they first arrived in the Falklands they we shot to pieces aftere the voyage and were not operational for several days!!!!
The CAAM system looks to be a superb system and should be bought and deployed ASAP. This looks like it can replace both Rapier and the HVM system. I personally would still like to see a gun system (fitted with LMM for good measure) both for the Army and on our ships.
The more I look at the CTA 40 the less I like it. Certainly for the Navy, we should standardise on the 30×173 round. This would enable both the Goalkeeper and the Bushmaster cannon to share the same ammo. I could never understand why we had both Goalkeeper AND Phalanx!
I believe that Goalkeeper was to be developed in containerised form and also in an above deck mount. There were also plans to add electro-optical sensors to compliment the Radar. We should standard on this with the DSM30/Bushmaster (fitted with LMM)for the smaller vessels and for anti-surface defence.
http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day3/latest-sigma-gunmissile-c.shtml
If Goalkeeper could be made mobile then this would be ideal for Counter Rocket and Artillery defence.
Phil Darley,
As usual you talk a great deal of good sense and I agree that we neglect ground-based air defence at our peril. I am also of the same opinion with regard to the need for a gun system.
However, I think you are wrong to take the Falklands campaign as an example of how the RAPIER fared in conflict. The early RAPIER system was optics-based and capable of direct line-of-vision daylight-only engagements, although the later addition of the Blindfire radar unit converted it into more of an-all weather weapon. That was followed in 1989 by a new infra-red target-tracking system known as Darkfire and then by the new Rapier2 missile.
The latest RAPIER system, RAPIER Field Standard C (or RAPIER 2000) includes all those improvements carried out over the years, together with a few more. It is, in fact, an entirely new system, with much wider capability than the earlier system. It has a full engagement arc out to a range of over 8,000 m and to an altitude of a least 3,000 m. It has eight missiles instead of six and has the capability of engaging two targets at once. Difficult targets such as surveillance drones or low-flying helicopter can be encountered with a much greater hit probability than previously. It also lends itself to routine maintenance much more than was previously the case. Furthermore, it can also operate in ECM environments. In fact, I am firmly of the opinion that it was RAPIER FSC that should have been made self-propelled and not HVM!
“If Goalkeeper could be made mobile then this would be ideal for Counter Rocket and Artillery defence.”
Not going to happen. Phalanx is a bolt-on system that simply stands on the deck. Goalkeeper is a different beast that takes much room in the level below.
It’s too huge for a practical land warfare system (someone could of course develop a different, compact C-RAM on the basis of the GAU-8).
@Phil Darley, and anyone else who wants a stab at it!
Why is the army so keen on 40mm CTA? I take a look at all the the other stuff out there, especially the Bushmaster 35mm/50mm Supershot or the good old 30×173 and I can’t help but think WTF!
Is it just new shinny toy syndrome? I just can’t see the advatage of developing a whole new system.
Thanks,
Andy.
Andy, look at this; http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/DCMT07-CD.jpg
Then read this; http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm
@ Pete Arundel,
Hi, thanks for the links. Catch up reading mode engaged…..
Cheers,
Andy.