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

[XGnr]

Any soldier can be taught engage an aircraft with a missile or gun system. Afghanistan proved that point where the dustmen engaged enemy aircraft with SA AD and a fire and forget missile system (Stinger) in a theatre where only enemy aircraft flew.

Our (NATO and Joint doctrine) AD situation is somewhat more complex. There are many allied variants of air, aviation, RPV, UAV and other assets that fly in a complex AD environment at all height bands (levels). Many of our western aircraft are being used by potential aggressors. Our former enemy is selling their aircraft to our allies. Superimpose rules of engagement, airspace control measures, weapons control states on top of the aircraft recognition problem and you have a real challenge. This challenge can be overcame with some technology, but it is the human with the finger on the trigger who decides the fate of an enemy (or friendly) jet or RW jock. Our glamour boys in blue would prefer that the guys pointing the missiles were specialists. Government accountants seem to agree with them as missiles are too expensive to "waste". $$ wise, one 35K missile can remove a 35 million dollar enemy (or friendly) figher quite easily.

Using the current CF VLLAD Javelin missile system as an example, you require a skilled operator who can take all of the above mentioned factors into account, and successfully engage the proper target in poor lighting and weather conditions. To get to that state requires an immense number of hours in training simulators and lots of ac recognition training, retraining and more training.

If you were to push Javelin down to the infantry they would have to take the same amount of training to ensure survivability of our ac and to prevent wasting expensive missiles on our ac. In other words they would become specialists - which we now have in the AD (mind you in ever reduced numbers).

Even Stinger requires extensive training and the same rules of engagement and other requirements present the Stinger gunner with many of the same challenges as the Javelin Gunner.

I am happy to note that someone recognizes the need for more point AD at the bn level. There is a glimmer of hope yet...

 

[Yard Ape]

Infanty >> Why the Eryx?

"I‘d like to see the infantry get the job of point air defence of thier own positions and activities. Leave area defense, in/out air route coverage, and defense of Bge assest to the AD Artillery. DO NOT give the entire job to the infantry."

Some comments i made following the comparison of the Javlin AT to the Javelin AD. It would require training more people in a specialist role, but it would also mean more people in that role.

Yard Ape

 

[XGnr]

Congrats to 4 AD Regiment on the great performance in Switzerland. A 35 MM Gun Detachment won top honours at a recent gun competition.

If anyone has info on this competition or a line on where I can find media items, let me know so that I (or you) can post the details.

Well done!

 

[birdgunner]

I just wanted to see what everyone elses opinion is on the restructuring of the air defence. I think that all air defence in one place is a great idea and only adats is the way to go.

 

[Bert]

The virtual battleground is becoming a reality. With space-based surveillance, radar data, on the ground (and air and sea) targetting, AWACS, all tied into a command and control net, hitting multiple targets anywhere on the planet within minutes is becoming a reality. The implementation of the patriot system recently in Iraq is buggy example of it. Satellites can target and pin-point characteristics of enemy submarines and even pick out diesel exhaust from poorly tuned up tanks even from orbit. To that end, the cold war tank is obsolete. As some others will point out, the vehicles Canada may acquire to fit into this model (i.e. Stryker) doesn‘t have what it takes to survive in conflict. What if the net fails and the Stryker or ADATS vehicle is out by itself facing the wrong end of a T-64 gun (that was a great post Recce41). Worst of all, what if the ADATS system is controlled by a Windows 2000 server and the blue screen of death, which guarenteed will happen more than occasionally, happens frequently.
Or Windows 2000 woun‘t support that hardware or will insist on creating IRQ conflicts that really really shouldn‘t be because some jark thought plug and play was a good idea....

 

[Buck03]

IMHO ADATS has been given a bum rap by being labelled solely an Air Defence weapon. While it is still the leader in that class, surpassing Roland 3 and Rapier 2000.
Its anti-armour capability is unrivaled and the sensor suite makes the Coyote look like the close cousin of a pair of binoculars.

No, the ADATS should not all be centralized in one location. Each brigade should contain an
ANTI-BATTERY made up of ADATS. But with the CLS pre Sept.11 intent to realign resources, consolidation in one location may be the best interim solution.

Create an ANTI-REGIMENT, develop doctrine, tactics and an organization to exploit all of ADATS capabilities. The ability of its sensors to provide superior situational awareness, combined with wireless data transfer has shown this system to be a true example of RMA.

As for the Air Defence, we need to retain Javelin to protect assets near the FEBA. With resources/ money remaining extremely tight, the use of reservists offer the best bang for the buck.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

All the air defence exercises I‘ve seen the troops in those things couldn‘t hit the broad side of a barn.

 

[Buck03]

CFL
I found your post a little confusing. Are you saying the ADATS can‘t hit the barn?
Or is it the soldiers manning it?

Do you have air defence on all your exercises?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

We have ADATS attachments on Brigade level ex‘s. I‘m not sure if its the equipment or the guys manning it but they can‘t seem to hit ****.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sometimes the idea is not to hit but to come as close as possible to the simulated target that way it can be used over and over again.

 

[birdgunner]

To all:

I know that the ADATS, like ALL CF kit, have it‘s share of problems. The answer to that problem is to use it more often. From experience, I have taken the worst ADATS into the field, had more faults and problems then you can shake a stick at and after a couple of days things are fine (for the most part). I guess that‘s why whenever there is an ex, the "Regiment" is always out in the field for a pre-ex ex! (Buck 99, I know you know what I mean!)

 

[birdgunner]

To CFL:

I guess it is just jealousy right? I know that deep down inside, every infanteer would love to be snuggled up inside a nice warm ADATS on ex.

 

[Korus]

Are the rumors about the massive heat signature comming off the ADATs true?

 

[birdgunner]

Yes, the ADATS has a pretty big heat signature. It comes from the PPU, but it localized to one area of the vehicle. In FLIR, it shines like a Christmas tree! On a positive note, it will heat up a ration or dry your wet cbt boots in no time!

 

[twohig]

Kitch, you‘re just playing favorites. How do you like you‘re Javelin system now that you‘ve been up there?

But for heat signiture the LAV mounted ADATS may have an answer for that. I just hope the techs who are building it keep that in mind.

And remember to smile, you‘re a bird-gunner!
:blotto:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

With the CF going by way of a wheeled force I am wondering if they plan to mount the ADATs on a LAV3 chassis? Also is it true they plan on getting rid of the Javelin? All and all what is the future of Air Defence Artillery in Canada?

 

[Gunner]

Ex-Dragoon, that is a question that has been asked throughout the 90s. Air Defence, long the poor second cousin to the Field Artillery, finally received an excellent suite of kit (Twin Gun, Skyguard, ADATS and Javelin) to celebrate the end of the Cold War. Low Level Air Defence (LLAD) assets (ADATS) and Very Low Level Air Defence (VLLAD) assets (Gun/Javelin) remain excellent and operationally capable pieces of kit. However, in a cash and personnel strapped military they have been "raped" of resources since the redeployment from Germany and (in my opinion) is on life support.

These systems are very costly to use and maintain. As an example, ADATS software upgrades costs in the order of $10 Million a year (1999). Can the CF afford this? Can they afford not to?

I thought the 9/11 aircraft threat would have prompted more discussion on the Air Defence issue but I haven‘t heard very much. Our capability is fairly minimal to conduct point defence of key installations. Even NORADs capability is limited to interdiction of aircraft that have not been identified or acting funny.

Canada and the Canadian military need to define what level of operations they want to be capable of. The loss of capabilities (MBTs and self-propelled artillery) are moving us away from a "general purpose - combat capable" military. The medium weight alternative is more cost effective and more viable sell to the liberal left in our country.

I am not saying this is the wrong approach for Canada. However, I think if this is the thinking of the our political elite, the CF must accept that change is happening and stop trying to safeguard these capabilities and "get on with it". Do we cut Air Defence and just assume our allies (whoever they are) will provide it?

 

[Gunner]

Just to add to my last comments. I noticed on the DND website that they quote the following air defence equipment (not sure if it is all used):

20 - Twin 35 mm Gun
34 - ADATS
10 - Skyguard (radar)
24 - AVGP outfitted for VLLAD (Javelin)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The AVGPs fitted with JAvelin is this a mount like the Hummers fitted with Stinger have?

 

[Gunner]

No, nothing so sophisticated. Javelin remains a shoulder fired weapon. We don‘t have anything to compare with the US Avenger.

In answer to your original questions. I don‘t know if an ADATS system could be mounted on a LAV III do to its weight and requisite electronics etc.

Any Air Defenders out there?