UK's Surface to Air defense capability

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

metalbanger RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 2:27:06 PM

I assume Blood hound is now defunct, I spent a time on a bloodhound base as an air cadet, and it was sooooooooooo dull

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 3:05:59 PM

Army have Rapier, the RAF Rapier units are being disolved. All services have Starstreak manpads, with the army having them mounted on APC hulls also. I think our 230 odd Eurofighter Typhoons will take care of our air defence.

Quote Reply

jamiestrat RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 5:49:49 PM

hey that's good to know.....Is the Starstreak an effective platform?

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 6:16:43 PM

Very effective. The missile consists of a two-stage solid propellant rocket motor, a separation system and three high density darts. A pulse of power from the missile firing unit causes the first-stage motor to ignite, which accelerates the missile. Canted nozzles on the missile cause it to roll. The centrifugal force of the roll causes the fins to unfold for aerodynamic stability in flight. Once clear of the canister, the motor is jettisoned. The second-stage motor ignites and accelerates the missile to a velocity greater than Mach 4. A separation system at the front end of the motor contains three darts. When the second stage motor is burnt out, the thrust triggers the three darts to automatically separate. The darts maintain a high kinetic energy as they are guided to the same single target. Each dart contains guidance and control circuitry, a thermal battery, and a high-density penetrating warhead with fuse. The separation of the darts initiates the arming of the individual warheads. Each dart is guided independently using a double laser beam riding system. As the dart impacts the target, the inertial forces activate the delay fuse, allowing the warhead to penetrate before detonation.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 6:19:30 PM

I found this too on the Lockmart site. Even more interesting. tarstreak is a two-stage, hypervelocity missile in use with the United Kingdom (UK) Army in shoulder-launched, tracked, and wheeled vehicle applications. Currently, the Lockheed Martin and Thales team is adapting it for use as a rotary wing air-to-air missile system. This beam-riding, three-dart missile will provide air-to-air defense for attack and reconnaissance fleet operations. The Starstreak laser window designed for TADS/PNVS will be integrated on the Apache helicopter in Mesa, Arizona, in December 2001 followed by live-fire demonstrations and competitive testing in 2002. Starstreak is impervious to known countermeasures, inherently low-risk to friendly aircraft and has a low exposure time to acquire and fire. It has a range in excess of 5 km and is effective in clutter and battlefield obscurants. The TADS FLIR and TV are boresighted to the Starstreak laser, which has an embedded on-turret training capability. The missile requires neither a periodic maintenance program nor a smart launcher, and it meets requirements at a fraction of the cost of a missile recapitalization program. Starstreak is quick, decisive, and effective against enemy targets, making it useful in multi-mission defense roles.

Quote Reply

jamiestrat RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/10/2005 9:02:44 PM

Thanks for the info Heorot...I suppose along with those the Royal Navy could park a few Daring class in the English Channel if 'Old Europe' decides to attack....given a few more years

Quote Reply

flamingknives RE:UK's Surface to Air defense capability 8/11/2005 2:29:46 PM

Starstreak and Rapier are pretty much top of their class - heavier missiles are left out as the UK is an island and we have dedicated air defence fighters. A description of the Starstreak is that "it doesn't fire, it just f*£(s off" From a Squaddie, unsurprisingly. link link If there is a future need for long-range AAD, the ASTER missile developed for the PAAMS (Principal Anti-Air Missile System) on the Type 45 is also being developed for ground use.

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer Starstreak 8/11/2005 2:40:36 PM

Starstreak has also been tested in air to ground and ground to ground with very impressive results.

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:Starstreak 8/12/2005 5:50:11 AM

At peak the army operated considerably more Rapier fire units that the RAF, including the SP version originally developed for the Shah of Iran. Post Cold War they reduced to 2 regiments and disbanded one of these last year (it had Rapier Field Standard B2) when it was decided that FS C was unaffordable for the second regt. Subsequently, after a review of GBAD led by a senior RN officer, the RAF is loosing all their Rapier FS C having disposed of their FS B some years ago. FS C is substantially improved on FS B, including a new missile and is basically a new system. For example one FU can engage 2 tgts simultaneously, one on the optical channel one on the radar, the optical channel can be used at night. Starstreak (correctly called HVM (high velocity msl)) is the UK's 3rd or 4th gen msl of this class, like all the others (Blowpipe, Javelin, S15) it was developed by Shorts, Belfast (now Thales). It's launched either from the SP lnchr (Stormer), lightweight launcher or off the shoulder. The SP FUs each have the capability to use the other two modes because they have the seperate aiming unit. Obviously the non-SP FUs have just lt wt or shoulder fire. This is useful for deploying on building tops, etc. The latest enhancement is a night firing capability using a pssive device. FUs have always had a passive surveillance device. The only users of HVM are RA and RM. It's actually the result of the 'great debate' in 1983, the army was given the resources for an additional regt and there was much argument over SPAG vs msls. Basically msls are vastly better value for money, eg SPAG about 50 FUs whole life costs of about 120 SP msl FUs, not to mention far longer max effective range which means fewer can cover the same area.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Starstreak:reaction time and bearing rate 8/12/2005 5:07:38 PM

Some of you may know I amnot a great believer in ground-based air def; too much like skeet shooting! The only real air def is fighters. Neutralizer mentions the 1983 decision re missiles vs SPAG. Part of the problem was that Rapier performed terribly in the Falklands - it was the worst performing system and had the highest "overclaim" with 14 hits officially claimed in the 1982 White Paper, later reduced by 1985 to just one confirmed kill. Lord knows how many missiles they shot off; well at least 14! The conclusion was that Rapier was good at head-on point defense but couldnt handle "crossing targets" - i.e. those flying across it's front with little warning and a very high bearing rate, because the time interval between target masking (i.e the time between target exposure from behind one hill before it flys behind another hill) was too short. It took some 5-7 seconds from search/detect/IFF/acquire/track to actual launch, by which time the missile had only a few seconds before the target was masked from the launcher. A bit like shooting at low flying Snipe or Grouse. The effectiveness is how long the target is in view of the launcher, not the missile. I am told (Neutralizer may know) that the FSC RApier has an acquire to launch of 2-4 seconds; may not sound like a lot but it does increase success exponentially. If you have say a 140' arc in front of your launcher and the bearing rate of a fast jet at say 1/2 mile is 20' per second that gives 7 seconds exposure; with the old Rapier youd be launching from behind the target as it disappeared; with FSC the missile would have at least 3 seconds to hit which might just be possible. Bit essentially, no matter how fast the reaction or the missile, unless a crossing target is very close you will be unlikely to hit it. Good for protecting runways in flat countryside, not so good for defending in masked terrain. Starstreak also has a bearing rate problem since it rides the laser beam from the launcher - if the launcher loses the target, so does the missile. One feature of Starstreak which hasnt been mentioned is the IR/laser alarm which alerts to attack helos using lasers; and the kinetic penetrators can pass though trees and brush without problem. It should be a very effective detterent to attack helos loitering behind a tree-line. But against fast jets, same probs as any other ground-based system.

Quote Reply

flamingknives RE:Starstreak:reaction time and bearing rate 8/12/2005 6:20:14 PM

But against fast jets, same probs as any other ground-based system. Although Starstreak is very much faster than most GBAD, so engagement time is surely less of a problem. On top of that, it's designed for snap-shooting at fleeting targets.

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:Starstreak:reaction time and bearing rate 8/13/2005 1:35:12 AM

The FI problem was not crossing tgts per se, it was 'pop-up' tgts, including short exposure crossers. In that original FS B form the issue was getting the operator to visually acquire the target in a very short time, and he could only do it with both eyes looking through the sight, the surv rdr got the sight on the correct azimuth, he then had to search vertically (they'd always trained to do this with crossers), in FI getting azimuth was also a last second matter due to the pop up/short exposure time, they tried manual orientating the sighting head by the Det Comd but it wasn't designed this way and wasn't successful. The solution was FS B1 with its 'pointing stick'. This was on a tripod, slaved to the sighting head, and used by the Det Comd with naked eyeball of the sky. (They also changed the live firing practices to simulate short exposure crossers by the simple expedient of potted shrubs). Of course today ADCIS gives some RAP info down to FU level (Rapier and HVM), and this is improving with full RAP access appearing at bde level (ie a Link 16 ground stn talking to AWACS) and the advent of Bowman means it can be more fully presented to FU level in real time, particularly once AD-BISA arrives. HVM's short time of flight doesn't give an a/c much chance, providing the operator can acquire and hold it. Given that HVM reflects the FI experience then I think we can assume that they've got the problem cracked. Whether other SHORAD systems have is another matter.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Starstreak:reaction time and bearing rate 8/13/2005 12:12:18 PM

I am more a fan of ground based SAM's than I am of dedicated fighter aircraft, unlike Worcester. To remove the problem of the launcher losing line of sight and the likes of, why not make a SAM along the lines of a loitering anti-radiation missile? So, when forward sensors have detected an enemy aircraft, the SAM is shot straight up into the air from a verticle launcher, by a primary stage booster rocket, pushing it to say 30,000 feet. Then the primary stage booster falls away, and a parachute deploys, allowing the missile to very slowly drift to Earth. The nose of the missile should be fitted with sensors suitable for detecting aircraft against ground clutter, and on seeing one, jettesons the parachute, and starts up a secondary motor speeding the missile down onto the offending low flying aircraft.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Starstreak:reaction time/bearing rate: ground guidance vs. autonomous missile 8/13/2005 1:33:11 PM

Interesting comments. I think we're all describing the difference between (1) a ground-guided/controlled system (only effective when the LAUNCHER can see the target) and (2) an autonomous missile which, once seen, will follow the target no matter what. All ground based missile control systems, whether radar or laser or optical, are limited to what the ground launcher can see and "lose" whatever it cannot see. Some believe that by making the computer and missile faster it will increase the likelihood of success - this is certainly the "Short Bros" school of thinking. In this sense, HVM is little more than another much faster, more sophisticated successor to Startreak and Blowpipe; all "line of sight" systems which fail as soon as you cannot see the target. The other school is the self-guided missile school which gave us the "Stinger" family of fire and forget systems, which oddly have been preferred by those UK forces which are allowed to choose their own equipment, e.g. SAS. Of course the "line of sight" believers will say that Stinger et als are subject to counter-measures/decoys and lack target discrimination. They make much of HVMs "unjammable" beam riding nature. HVM may well be the limitation of the "line of sight" approach since the technology in computer and missile speed has reached its limits, and the uniqueness of their ECM tolerance is no more, whereas.... The introduction of new "planar array" technology which actually "sees" and can recognize and remember the specific shape of a specific target has had devastating implications. Javelin is the most common example of this "fire and forget" system (Israeli Spike is another as is the Spear project development at LMT for the Stinger etc successor) which allows an operator to see, lock fire and move on, leaving the missile to do it's thing. Which is why the UK (and Australia) have selected Javelin to replace Milan - because you need a system where the operator doesnt have to see the target all the time. It sees the target shape just as you or I see it - in fact better - and does not get confused by flares or chaff or smoke or electronic jamming or laser jammers. So, a planar-array SAM will lock on, launch and track while you can just walk away or even go for a second or third target. Completely autonomous. Against this technology, the "line of sight" systems, however quick or fast do seem, conceptually, to be very old fashioned. As for the concept of fighter vs SAM/AAA:- 1. In every conflict fighters have always caused more casualties than SAM/AAA. From 1914 Zepellin hunting through every war to the present, SAM/AAA have accounted for about 10% of enemy air attrition - a remarkably steady number. In the Falklands this was 9%, while the fighters took 26%. In GW1 the total air dominance of fighters meant that zero enemy aircraft were downed by SAM/AAA. It is fighters which dominate. 2. Which is NOT to say that SAM/AAA has no role. I have said before that it is wrong to measure the success of SAM/AAA simply by the number of aircraft downed; it is the overall "denial of airspace" and the forcing of enemy air to take circuitous routes (using fuel), fly at low level (using fuel) and limiting time on target (possibly missing the target) which are much more important. To take the Falklands alone, it is no coincidence that the most successful Argentine raid (on Sirs Tristram and Gallahad at Bluff Cove) happened when there was no effective SAM/AAA presence. Some would argue that the absence of Combat Air Patrol alone was responsible, but remember, there was NO CAP over the Missile Box at San Carlos and yet because the Argentines had to fly low and did not want to "pull up" at their Initial Point for their target run that so many bombs missed while 60%+ (!) failed to detonate because they were released below their arming safe height. By contrast at Bluff Cove, with nothing but a few GPMG firing, thre Argentine Skyhawks at over 3,000 feet had time to observe the targets, approach at low level, climb to a proper release altitude and bomb the sh!t out of the two ships; and fly away unharmed. So while fighters will always remain the overwhelming means of killing other aircraft, there is a requirement for SAM/AAA as point defense and its success cannot be judged by "kills" alone but also by the extent to which its mere presence restricts enemy options. This is not an excuse, however, for using the old "line of sight" methodology when new "fire and forget" technology is available.

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:Starstreak:reaction time/bearing rate: ground guidance vs. autonomous missile 8/14/2005 4:31:19 AM

A msl going up to tens of thousands of feet certainly won't be SHORAD, because it will weigh quite a lot, this means lots of large vehicles, MHE, all the clagg. Basically SHORAD is limited to short range, around 6-8 km, because that gives a missile of about 50 kg which is about the limit for one man or woman to lift. SHORAD is basically defensive AD, although it can be successfully used offensively through deployment planning to put it onto en flypaths if you can id them. This means that it is generally dealing with aircraft approaching directly or diagonally (because defensive positioning means you are defending something (point, area, column) that is a target for air attack so a/c have to fly to it. Exposure time is an issue, but this is a function of aircraft altitude. Arg were like the RAF they flew very, very low. Brit AD had trained to drop Sov jets and heli. Heli being slow moving are an easy target once you've spotted them. Sov jets, like USAF, flew relatively high giving very good exposure times, particularly when they don't know they are being engaged until msl launch. Today the SHORAD target has changed, air launched msls and UAVs, heli; fast jets depend on the overall air situation and the success of the counter-air campaign. If they fly at traditional 'low' alt then they are easy, if they fly low as the RAF used to then they are still difficult but if they fly into an a SHORAD defended area then their chances of getting out are low, particularly when the FUs are getting the RAP so know when and where to look. Smaller tgts (msls and UAV) will present a problem but they're relatively slow moving and the latest HVM upgrade seems to have given x60 optics. Problem in FI was that Arg air was mostly attacking ships, which were not fully inside the GBAD area, naturally the FU dets tried to engage if they came in range. My understanding is the GBAD area was designed to protect the beachead, you could argue that it was a planning failure not to have seized other ground around San Carlos water so as to give it proper GBAD cover over the ships, my guess is they firstly lacked resources to secure all the necessary sites and secondly RN thought they could cope. As it happened there were other problems notably that RN was not part of the specified EMC environment for Rapier so FUs that could see ships sometimes encountered a bit of e-bother. Digital terrain based tools have greatly improved GBAD deployment planning to maximise FU engagement times against the expected attack flying. This was available for FI but it had to be done in UK and the tools were very first generation so replanning was difficult, which I suspect they had to do when they found how low Arg were flying. The problem with Blowpipe was that it took a hell of a lot of operator training, IIRC 600 'shots' on the simulator before being cleared for live firing, it was not SACLOS. Despite that both Brits and Arg used them successfully. However, Javelin, S15 and HVM didn't/don't suffer this problem because they are SACLOS. IR homers have the 'advantage' that you can quickly train any illiterate peasant to use them and they are great if all a/c are hostile (ie no air force of your own). Other than that we hit the air control problem and rules of engagement (which afflicts all SHORAD). The IR homer issue is that once you've launched that's it, if the operator has wrongly identified the aircraft then tough (SIFF is a big improvement so this problem may ease a bit but in the end air forces dictate the ROE, hence the importance of the RAP and effective ADC3 to FUs). This leads to very strict ROE. UK doesn't use IR because of this concern (and off course today lots of a/c have IR counter measures).

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT