• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Air Defence- 5 Years[and counting] of A.D. Thoughts

Gunner

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
11
Points
430
In the mid to late 80s the CF spent $1 Billion creating and upgrading our air defence capability (ADATS, Skyguard, Javelin, twin 35mm, creation of 4 AD Regt etc).  The result was the eqpt was procurred and the gunners trained only to have the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact crumble. During the mid 90s the CF mothballed alot of the eqpt and the gunners dramatically downsized.  There is currently a Total Force Regt in Chatum (4 AD Regt) and three total force units in 1 AD Regt, 18 AD Regt and one in Quebec (I believe its a battery of 62 RCA).  

Is it working?  I don't think so...so where do we go from here??
 
Hello,

Unfortunately, it seems every service branch is cracking at the seems. My question is, whatever happened to the air defense unit out in Comox, B.C.? Is there still a base out there?

-the patriot-
 
There is still an airbase at Comox, however, I don‘t believe there is any air defence assets there. The only location where there is army air defence assets is a detachment in Cold Lake and (probably) assets in Bagotville. These detachments are only 5-10 guys who run the radar and eqpt for the fighter jocks trg.
 
In ref to the AD (LLAD Project) of the 80‘s: Winning the Cold War has its bad side. Chatham is closed out and the AD Arty School is once again hidden in the Field Artillery School at CTC Gagetown.

As for the future, perhaps we should adopt the British approach: manpads (man portable AD) to the TA and specialty equipment cadres at the school.

And airfield AD; perhaps the airforce should take it over - they would take it a lot more seriously than the army ever has (or will).

I challenge serving AD personnell to express their opinions on this issue.
 
A question to the gunners out there:

I recently finished reading Tom Clancy‘s book Marine
and in it he mentioned that the USMC uses a variant of the LAV
that is armed with stinger missiles and a GAU cannon. Apparently
the USMC is very happy with this vehicle and is planning to order more. Being a medic and not a AD gunner, my question to the gunners out there is:
1) Is this system an effective and reliable weapon?
2)Would it be more cost effective?
3) Could it play an important role in air defence in Canada?

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this for me.
 
Starlight1,

I spent awhile tonight on the internet looking for a picture of said wpn system, however, I was unable to find one. I‘ve only experience with the US Army Avenger system. I‘m not an AD Gunner (Mr Magoo may be lurking around ... whereever bird gunners hang their hat when they are not being used), however, in answer to your questions:

1) Is this system an effective and reliable weapon?

I‘ll have to go with the information you brought from Tom Clancy (who am I to argue with Tom Clancy?). However, in a perfect world, the Marine Corps LAV variant would fit in quite nicely with our movement to medium weight, all wheeled fleet of LAV.

But, there is nothing wrong with the AD Eqpt (ADATS, Gun/Skyguard, and Javelin) that we have. The trouble is we don‘t use it for what it is designed for and it‘s only become an expensive air force training tool. The Army has not been kind to the Air Defence.

2)Would it be more cost effective?

Probably not as we spent a billion dollars on eqpt we don‘t use properly. What‘s to say we would spend more money (that we don‘t have) and purchase new eqpt (simply because it is wheeled) and don‘t use it properly either.

3) Could it play an important role in air defence in Canada?

Same answer as question 2.

Hope it helps. If you get anymore information on the vehicle, plse post again.
 
One of the problems we have in Canada is that ideally we
would want an AD weapon system to be forgiving, which is
a good thing for Allied pilots and aircraft.

The Stinger system is a "fire and forget" missile, the Javelin
on the other hand is not. An operator can cause the Javelin
missile once fired to leave its track, go ballistic (straight up)
and self-detonate harmlessly away from the once-intended target.
This is of course an important safety feature because for both systems the IFF (identify friend or foe) is entirely left up to the "Mark 1 eyeball" of the operator. In this day and age of coalitions, we can face the Iraqi Air Force with their MIGs, and have the Syrians on our side with their MIGs.

The Stinger‘s other failing is that it is a heat-seeker, so it‘s
best to fire it at the back of an en aircraft. In a lot of cases
in the fashion that Canada deploys AD manpads systems that means
the aircraft will already have dropped it‘s payload of munitions
on or about the intended target.

Having said that the Americans have a different system of employing AD. They saturate an area, believe heavily in interdiction missions and in ambushes with the Stinger. They pick potential fly routes and cover them, when the en flys by everybody can open up. Canadians for largely economic and philosophical reasons allot areas of responsibility
and track targets passing off the option to fire from one detachment to another as the aircraft enters a det‘s area of responsibility and then exits.

The AD LAV veh variant is an exciting system, rapidly deployable,
robust, able to carry a number of missiles, easily transportable
by air, sea, flatbed, or rail. Currently in Canada we‘re using
the LSVW to transport AD manpads dets, which is not an optimal
solution. It can‘t go everywhere, and can‘t keep up with tanks
and APCs on the march.
 
Mr Magoo brings up a very good point on the portability/manoevre capability of the AD Manpads Dets. During Ex Prairie Ram in 1998, 1 CMBG conducted an exercise in Suffield that ran 3 Batttle Groups (based on 1 PPCLI (grizzly based plus two sqns of leopards and other attachments), 2 PPCLI (M113 based plus two sqns of leopards and other attachments) and LdSH (RC) (three x 15 Leopards/sqn plus one or two companies of infantry from 1 PPCLI) through live fire battle run. They were ably supported by 1 RCHA (+) on each battle run and the remainder of 1 CMBG assets (plus FGA and Apaches from the Idaho National Guard). It was an incredible experience and one that we don‘t do very often anymore. I don‘t expect to see it again for awhile. Anyone, I digress. Elements of 18 AD Regt and 4 AD Regt (out of Moncton) deployed to support the exercise. There were two main problem with the AD participation: one was manoevrability of the AD as they were tpted in LSVW and were not able to keep up with the BG (the BG had to wait for the AD when it was there turn to attack enemy targets). Secondly, the AD personnel simply did not have the experience to work at BG level operations. This is a concern as the AD Btys are a fmn level resource, however, if we don‘t train at BG level it is not surprising that the skills of the AD Gunners are not where they should be.

Just my comments on a beautiful Thursday morning in God‘s Country (aka Alberta)!
 
Thanks Brad!

The trouble with purchasing that variant was it would give everyone "gun" envy!
 
Thanks to all for your replies.
One more question to Mr. Magoo:
Could an M113 or a Bison be configured to carry AD assets,
thereby replacing the LSVW for said purpose? Would this
allow AD assets to then keep up with faster moving vehicles
(i.e. tanks/LAV‘s)?
 
Indeed a M113 could be configured. The ADATs uses a M113
chassis. M113s would be better for manpads (man portable
AD systems) than for the ADATs.

With the ADATs (AD Anti-Tank system) the turret is so heavy
that the veh can be unstable and has difficulty moving along,
it‘s very tough on the power-pack.

Originally the plan was that the Leopard would be replaced,
and the 120 Leopards would be divided into two groups, 60
would be kept as is for Armr Recce, and the other 60 would be
ADATS and Engr vehs. How sweet that would have been!

I think maybe the Bison would be best for our purposes. Good
tactical mobility, and great strategic mobility, plus not too
heavy on maintenance. The problem is that M113s reqr a fair
bit of maintenance. I know my unit was offered a dozen or more
M113s but we haven‘t the budget, or the maintainers to keep them in good repair. So we passed. I‘m not certain what happened
to them, I think maybe the bde took them for the LI Bn.
 
Rumour has it that in certain circles, the idea of scrapping the ADATS is being tossed around. What‘s everyones thoughts on this and why on earth is this happening?!!

-the patriot-
 
First, it‘s only a rumour.

I too have heard one. The rationale: it‘s expensive and we never use it, so let‘s sell it off and buy something that we will use.

These people must be the bane of the doctrine writers.
 
Yes the rumour has been going around for awhile. Being a mud gunner I‘m not as familiar with the AD Arty but I do know there is alimited number of systems out there and it costs a arm and leg to fire one missle. Most AD troops train on the Javalin and even they have trouble firing live beacuse of the cost. They did mange to fie 5 in Shilo this summer for a QL3 crse but it is not a pre-requist to gaining the hat badge. My guess would be thjar ADATS will disappear beacuse od cost resraints and lack of role and thge focus will be point defence with the Javelin. Gunner probably knows more abot it the me. (He is also a mud gunner but travels in high circles than me.)
 
Yes, it is true the ADATS is being looked at to be scrapped, because of its expense (check out Jane‘s International Defence Review Monthly). Yes, it is very capable with ability to destroy both armoured vehicles and short-to-medium range air threats at 6000-1000m, but it is very expensive (the US decided not to purchase it for this reason). A more suitable replacement would be to replace them with the LAV AD variant which utilizes the improved Stinger Bloc II (6000m range) and a 25mm gatling gun in a turret mounted on a LAV vehicle. Albeit it is not quite as effective as the ADATS it is more than capable of providing an effective low level air defence capability. If this option is pursued, it would be very logical to also sell the 35mm twin gun/Skyguard and Javelin systems and replace them with the Stinger missle system. There are many countries that use the Javelin and Twin gun sytem that would purchase them. For Canada‘s air defence needs the LAV AD and and Stinger would certainly provide more than adequate capabilty for a much lower cost than the current systems.
 
the real question is, does it have the same capacities with lower cost?if it doesnt have the same capacities, it is not worth considering the idea of chg the ADATS.But thats not the way they think in Ottawa because then, we would have a very capable and well equiped army.
 
Actually I would ask what are the requirements of a low level air defence system? I would suggest that the ADATS is overkill, and there are much less expensive alternatives to the ADATS, such as a HUMRAAM sytem used in combination with the LAV AD. A combination of systems is much less expensive than one system that does the job of both, to a lesser degree, for twice the price is not effective.
 
Would the LAV-AD be suited to Canadian AD tactics if the stingers were replaced with Javelins or Starstreak HVMs?
 
Perhapse some point AD responsibilities should be taken up by the Inf Battalions, within the combat support Coy.
What do any AD guys think of that?
 
Back
Top