• 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

birdgunnnersrule

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So What!   If the LDSH are to be the anti armour kings of the army, let it be.   Army first, Corps self interest second.   Internal infighting and deliberate sabotage will slow down the army's transformation.   With the LDSH operational experience and the Air Defence Gunners background with the ADATS we are on the verge of changing the dynamics of the Battle field. With the help of the rest of the army we can now show case an asset that the Air Defence knew it had, but refused to promote out of fear. Let's put the anti armour Regiment(MMEV, MGS, TUA) as enemy force during the next major trg event and let the rest of the army see the devastating effects.

Since this started as an Air Defence forum:

1) The ADATS can destroy any armoured vehicle out there.   Don't believe everything you hear or read about the last exercise in August.  

2) The gun/skyguard:   We still have them, but all training as been suspended. Some of the sky guards are still be used by a small Detachment of 4 AD Regt has in Cold Lake to support Air Force Trg.   Other then that they are taking up space.

3) The Javelin:   It has been slated for decommissioning as well.   All 022 positions in the VSHORAD units will be returned to the mother Regiment (4 AD Regt) or it is quite possible that we will all ship out west together when it happens. Sorry to the sisters units, but the writings on the wall!

4) The future:   We will all inevitably end up out west.   Will we all be all anti armour gnr's in the LDSH or part of 4 AD Regt is still not known.   At the end of the day, you will still get a pay cheque, pension, and some good times if you stick around. That's a decision for people with big shoulders to make, we will react as usual.

UBIQUE!
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
182
Points
710
birdgunnnersrule said:
So What!  If the LDSH are to be the anti armour kings of the army, let it be.  Army first, Corps self interest second.  Internal infighting and deliberate sabotage will slow down the army's transformation.  With the LDSH operational experience and the Air Defence Gunners background with the ADATS we are on the verge of changing the dynamics of the Battle field. With the help of the rest of the army we can now show case an asset that the Air Defence knew it had, but refused to promote out of fear. Let's put the anti armour Regiment(MMEV, MGS, TUA) as enemy force during the next major trg event and let the rest of the army see the devastating effects.

Well at least there's one gunner willing to wrap his head around the problem and get on with it. Maybe he can convince his little brothers to quite throwing sand around the playground and do likewise.
 

Mountie

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
How about replacing the ADATS and Javelines with the newest version of the Starstreak, which is also a dual air defence anti-tank missile.  Mount a 6-round pedestal launcher on the back of an Eagle IV armoured car and you have a light armoured MMEV much cheaper and safer (not so top heavy) than the ADATS. And it only requires a two-member crew, which is also cheaper.  Crews can carry a man-portable launcher to use when necessary.  There is no man-portable version of the ADATS to my knowledge.  I suggest a battery of 24 systems, in six sections of 4 systems each, per brigade.
 

birdgunnnersrule

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As an Air Defender, we have been perilously close to extinction for a number of years.  Sept 11th has put us at the forefront and the CF is now realizing that it has not exploited the true potential of the ADATS.  This has led to a drastic shift of focus and future for our organization.  We will be a part of an anti-armour in the near future, which is excellent for the CF and army transformation.  I just have a few questions to get a sense of what other people in this forum think or feel?

1) Should we give up our Air Defence capability altogether?
2) Should Air Defence be a secondary role for the anti armour units?
3) Should the anti armour unit be a separate entity from the air defence? i.e Keep an ADATS unit that trains solely for Air Defence purposes.

 
0

022 AD Gunner

Guest
Now thats some good questions!!!

1) Should we give up our Air Defence capability altogether?
Ans: No ...cause one day an air vehicle will come over the horizon and we will do what we do.

2) Should Air Defence be a secondary role for the anti armour units?
Ans: Sure why not, if they are in the direct fire role and there is an air threat other ADATS will be put on overwatch

3) Should the anti armour unit be a separate entity from the air defence? i.e Keep an ADATS unit that trains solely for Air Defence purposes.
Ans: Yes.... take 4 AD Regt and fold it, 119 AD Bty goes to the DF Regt and 128 AD Bty takes over the strict AD role.


:skull: :cdn: :skull:
 
1

12alfa

Guest
12Alfa said:
1) The ADATS can destroy any armoured vehicle out there

Thats quite a statement given the data put there. I, and I would think many here would like to see some hard data supporting this statement.

As proven by some of the best tank designs out there ,data seems to support their design to defeat your adats mimissileNow I can see this not happening all the time, but it is a given that the mimissileon't penetrate them at the ranges that you would operate at 100% of the time.

I'm looking forward to see some data on this claim although.


Also reregarding the NEW missiles on the MEWS: You are saying we will get different missiles and warheads in the future. I can agree this would be good, although MBT's and armour is advancing at the same time. As of this time armour has the upper hand, given time missiles could overmatch them, but armour development, as missile development does not stop.
By the time Canada gets it's shittt together the system will be of little use....again.
 

twohig

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
To reply to Mountie's post, there is no plan to replace our Javelin systems, something that I completely disagree with.  The ADATS or MMEV can cope with most threats, but it does have it's limitations.  A man portable system is important in getting into places that vehicles can't and to hide quietly and undetected until it fires.  All the eggs are being put in one basket and I believe that is a dangerous train of thought. 

I believe that an ADATS or MMEV going toe to toe with a tank is a very bad idea.  The rate of fire of a MBT is much faster than the missile system, that being said, the whole purpose of the system is to engage tanks before they can.  In that respect, the system works.  (Kitch, remember prairie ram.)  The benefits of reactive armour and the like in defending against missiles is a good point, the ADATS missile as it is has a shape charge to melt through armour, but going 4 times the speed of sound when it does it does give quite a punch.  It will be interesting to see what the new missile types will be.

The only way to really prove a weapon is to use it in combat, I am very curious to see how that would work out.  The one thing I do understand is that if everybody stays in their own section of the sandbox and don't play nice, when it comes time to actually deploy we will be one big cluster f*&?.  Nobody can do everything on their own, and history is full of examples.
 

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was wondering what the ADATS missile tubes and radar are heavily armoured? Because if you plan on driving a slow top heavy vehicle with a huge IR signature and a radar on it to the top of a hill so as to exploit the systems huge range advatage over tanks you had better be expecting a whole lot of HE to be inbound.
 
1

12alfa

Guest
re:
The benefits of reactive armour and the like in defending against missiles is a good point, the ADATS missile as it is has a shape charge to melt through armour, but going 4 times the speed of sound when it does it does give quite a punch.

Shaped charges and speed are not a benifit as far as I know.Lance could shed some light here.
As far as i can see there is a point where a shape charge become ineffective with large amounts of speed.
Going 4 times the speed of sound will not improve the overall effect of a shape charge properities on modern armour, if it were so Ke wpn would be the way to go against modern armour.
Still I would like to see some hard data on this.
 

twohig

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The missiles themselves are not armoured and the vehicle does not offer that much protection, but that is ADATS, and the primary role of ADATS is Air Defence, secondary is Anti Tank System (hence ADATS) and when it was developed in the 80s the anti tank properties were more than capable.  The whole point of putting it on the LAV chassis is for speed and mobility, any air defender who has worked with ADATS will tell you that it would be better on a bigger chassis.

The point I was making about the missile was that in the initial development of the ADATS that was the technology available, I am very curious to see what the new anti tank missile will be.  The thing that some are fogeting is that the missile is primarily an air defence missile, you don't need a shape charge to go through a jet fighter, you need a lot of shrapnel and large blast patern.

And about who is going to own what in new equipment, watch and shoot, I've been told that the air defence is closing for the last 8 years.  Nothing is decided until it's on paper and even then things change.
 

GINge!

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
12Alfa said:
re:
As far as i can see there is a point where a shape charge become ineffective with large amounts of speed.
Going 4 times the speed of sound will not improve the overall effect of a shape charge properities on modern armour, if it were so Ke wpn would be the way to go against modern armour.
Still I would like to see some hard data on this.

Quite correct. Expect MMEV to 'eventually' be armed with a KE missile. Maybe a segmented LRP like HEMI if DRDC-V can scooby out the technical problems, maybe something like a guided CRV-7. If we go with CE, I reckon an ADATS type missile, fitted with tandem and/or top attack WH.

MACH 4 is good on CE rounds, only because it gets to the target that much quicker, and gives that much less time to react. Though at shorter ranges, as has been discussed, this high speed can become a liability. 
 

ghazise

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The primary Anti-Air Defense weapon is the CF-18, with that is mind think about this:

AD is more of an assest that is required because it is a good idea, not because you absolutely know that you will need it. 

It is my impression that the CF is leaning towards LAV based AD.

The USMC has disbanded its LAV-AD Plt, in favor of a HUMVEE based AD assests.

Though the ADATS and LAV-AD are very capable and expensive systems to operate, it is more effective to have a HUMVEE based AD assests like Avenger and CLAWS.  Having a HUMVEE based AD will allow the CF to retain the AD capability which is more economical, having an economical system allows for more training, more training more efficiency.     
 

Jantor

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Totally hypothetical questions here: Would those retired 35mm Oerlikon guns with the AHEAD system be very affective in countering the rockets fired at the base in Kandahar? What radar system could you use with it? Skyguard? ADATS? I don't know the capabilities of either radar to take out small targets. I'm also sure someone here has thought about this but I've yet to see an opinion.

The Taliban might get lucky one day with one of their rockets, although I sure hope not.

Canadian warships have the Phalanx to destroy incoming projectiles, what's wrong with having the equivalent level of protection for a military base that's frequently attacked?

My apologies if I posted this in the wrong thread

 

GINge!

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
a modified AHEAD round, with less, but larger pellets could be used. The GDF-005's would likely be slaved in pairs to the SkyGuard FCU. I don't think even the sharpest-eyed twin 35 gunner would be able to hit an incoming missile in autonomous mode.

At zero mils elevation, the twin 35's could also provide a measure of protection for the camp in countering ground-based threats. 1100 rpm (IIRC) is pretty devastating to any soft skinned or wet targets.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
8
Points
380
GINge! said:
At zero mils elevation, the twin 35's could also provide a measure of protection for the camp in countering ground-based threats. 1100 rpm (IIRC) is pretty devastating to any soft skinned or wet targets.

I'm way out of my lane here, but the thought of 1100rpm raining down on insecure, unknown areas, kinda makes me think that it only takes one poor Afghan wandering around with his donkey driven cart to get hit, to nullify any good will we work so hard to generate.

my .05 cents
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
13
Points
460
Thinking about this and the MMEV, I came to the conclusion that we do need an integrated AD asset, and since we are a "LAV Centric" force, the USMC Blazer would have made an ideal platform. It is interoperable with other LAVs (Coyotes if we take the USMC LAV-25 version, or LAV III's if we pop the Blazer turret on the LAV III hull).

The Stinger missile pods can be swapped for other missiles if desired (the company offers the Blazer with the French Mistral for example), and the 25mm Gatling gun provides close in protection and local self defence. While this isn't as big or "sexy" as the ADATS or MMEV programs, it is relatively simple, doable and to my mind, makes a lot of sense.

Enemy forces have demonstrated the use of UAV's (Hezbollah flew Iranian made UAV's over Israel a few years ago, and Ba'athist Iraq was also working on a UAV program before OIF). Many nations do have air forces, and since no air cover is 100% effective, having some sort of AD "backstop" is also a real requirment. I don't know why AD seems to be an afterthought, but there should be some attention paid to the subject.
 

Freddy Chef

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The US Army is allying with the US Navy regarding Air Defence in the following discussion:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52441.0.html

Any thoughts from our folks in Air Defence Artillery?

Also, both the US and the CF’s Navy use this piece of kit for Air Defence:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/rim-7.htm

Thoughts from our folks in Air Defence Artillery?

Found it interesting that the Navy’s Mk 15 CIWS uses the M61A1, the same weapon in the Air Force’s fighter jets. Also interesting that the Navy’s RIM-7 is similar to the AIM-7 also used in the Air Force’s fighter jets. Curious if these weapons systems could be employed by Air Defence Artillery, thus be used by Air Force, Navy, and Army.

“Bird Gunners”, sort me out as you see fit.

 

Rayman

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hope I dont get the rules list for this since its been about one year since someones posted in this but.... Heres an idea. We just got some Leopard 2's to replace the Leopard 1's. We also retired a few years ago the Twin 35mm's. So why not combine the two and voila a second AD system?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/gepard.htm

Since we already have two of the platforms used all we would need is the turrent and radar but maybe they can take something from the Skygaurds and chop'em up a little? It's probably not the best idea in the world but its still used in countries such as Germany who are operating the Leopard 2's that we're borrowing.
 
Top