UK's Surface to Air defense capability

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Worcester RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - interested 8/16/2005 1:07:03 PM

Questions:- 1. When was the last time SAMs were used? (GW1, Falklands) 2. How effective were they? (Answers, "not very" and "terrible".) 3. How do you rate 84 launchers against 232 Eurofighter Typhoon? 4. Air Dominance is not dependent on SAMs; certainly not anything however "new" which relies on old fashioned line-of-sight guidance.

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - interested 8/17/2005 4:08:50 AM

In SHORAD talking about 'msls' what is actually meant are 'fire units' (FU) meaning a single firing detachment with at least one launcher capable of holding one or more missiles (Rapier FS C 8, HVM SP 8, HVM LW 3, HVM shoulder 1). HVM SP FUs actually have 2 lnchrs, the SP itself and the separate aiming unit that can be used on the shoulder or on the LW lnchr. Rapier is and in FI was used to provide area coverage, how big the area is depends on the terrain and how many 'holes' can be accepted. In favourable terrain like N Germany (ignoring the Weserberg area) a battery can cover a fair sized patch, 120 sq km rings a vague bell, in FI it was much more difficult (akin to riflemen in jungle). In FI AD for forward troops was provided by Blowpipe, in Germany SP Rapier could also be used in this role. However, basically there are only 3 types of SHORAD deployment: area, VP and route. Rapier fuel consumption is and was totally predictable, then it was a Coventry Climax engine running of petrol, now something dieso. IIRC, in FI it was daylight only because there was no Blindfire. There were of course 2 Rapier btys and a RAF Regt sqn, but only one from the beginning. SHORAD is, of course, extremely effective, that's why western airforces have taken to flying at no less than 15,000 ft. Arg didn't have that option because the RN's Sea Dart would have caught them, they were also smart enough to know that if they flew at USSR/USAF 'low' altitudes they wouldn't last long so they went ultra low. Of course flying this low also reduces the ability of the pilot to acquire targets in time to attack them (definitely a 2 way street with AD). This is another form of AD success because the effectiveness of the attacking aircraft has been significantly degraded and in reality war is about fighting people not machines. The problem with 'fire and forget' msls is that if the msl loses lockon it also forgets. This loss can be thru counter-measures but also if the tgt briefly disappears behind terrain, the advantage of SACLOS is that the operator can re-acquire the target if it disappears then re-appears. Part of the FI problem was that operators hadn't been trained to do this because in European terrain with Sov tactics there wasn't a need. Given that in western forces GBAD seems to be an ever decreasing priority its difficult to guess when next gen will appear. However, it's likely to be something that greatly expands the domain of AD to not just UAVs but also rockets, msls and shells. What technology will be used is an open question. UK deployed a substantial GBAD component in GW1 (both RA and RAF Regt). In GW2 there was a half sqn of RAF Regt Rapier, they should have been shooting down the Iraqi cruise msls that were launched but were not allowed to, basically the USAF had imposed Weapons Hold on all SHORAD and it was impossible to get the control arrangements in place to allow Weapons Tight, never mind Weapons Free.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/17/2005 5:34:53 PM

I appreciate that you are wedded to SAMs but as a last attempt at reasoned logic:- 1. "Rapier is and in FI was used to provide area coverage, how big the area is depends on the terrain and how many 'holes' can be accepted." Not true. Most of the froces for most of the time were operating well outside any Rapier coverage. It was THE worst system in the campaign, it used too much helo time to move and it sucked gas - so it was left behind, 25-40 miles behind the front line. 2. "Rapier fuel consumption is and was totally predictable.." So why wasnt it predicted? Why was it there a MOGAS crisis? 3. "a battery can cover a fair sized patch, 120 sq km rings a vague bell, in FI it was much more difficult (akin to riflemen in jungle)." I wonder why you persist in apologising for Rapier? The Falklands are less mountainous than south Wales with huge sweeps of area open to view; "jungle" indeed! Brig Thompson records using all his helos for several days to move Rapier posts to different altitudes and positions despite all the best computer simulations...he said, the problems with Rapier fell into four categories...target too high, target too low, target too fast, target too far away. Which is why he left them behind. Miles and miles behind. Couldnt be bothered. As for Blowpipe, the RArty team were not fit enough to keep up with 2 Para and had to be replaced by the R Marines BAD Troop. It was a Marine who scored the sole kill. 4. "SHORAD is, of course, extremely effective, that's why western airforces have taken to flying at no less than 15,000 ft." From which they laser/GPS bomb anything they want with utter impunity. Effective at what, exactly? At 200 meters a bow and arrow can be effective; but not against a sniper rifle. So "effective" that SHORAD units are being cut while fighters are being increased. 5. "What technology will be used is an open question." Not it's not; it's planar array. No doubt BAe will catch on sooner or later. At some point you will overcome the political resistance from the "not invented here" people in Shorts/Thales and their disappearing dependancy, the RArty missile community, and you may get planar tech. Poor RArty! Lost anti-tank guns to the infantry, then anti-tank missiles; how long before they lose SAM? Well, the R Marines runn all their own SAM, as do SAS. And with planar tech fire/forget is already here. Politics and jobs; or did you really think line of sight was superior? 6. "In GW2 there was a half sqn of RAF Regt Rapier" Now disbanded. I wonder why? (I dont really!)

Quote Reply

neutralizer RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/18/2005 7:35:23 AM

Rapier was seldom, if ever used to provide area cover over forward troops (apart from SP), so nothing special in FI once inf started to advance. As I've repeatedly pointed out the problem where they did deploy was tactical flying that limited exposure time and, just as if not more important, warning time. Basically UK AD had not trained to shoot down the RAF (the only serious low flyers in NATO), but the higher flyers. If UK had foreseen the need to put 2 bdes ashore in FI then no doubt there would have been other differences in training. The AEW SK when they appeared were no help because while they could talk to the ships they couldn't provided track data to GBAD (never mind the RAP, which is only now becoming available). The problem was that until 1982 AD had been starved, they only got SP Rapier because of the Shah's overthrow! Blowpipe had been scaled at 1 tp per bde, and I'm not even sure that 5 AB was included in this, IIRC they didn't add an AD tp to the para arty regt until post FI, and whatever went to FI with 5AB certainly hadn't been thru P Coy! What illustrates the scale of the problem is that the only unit sent to FI from Germany was a Blowpipe bty (not in the first wave). One of the key lessons of FI was that AD needed to be treated seriously, which it very quickly was - an aditional regt was authorised taking headcount from across the army and RN transferred headcount to RA to provide a Rapier bty to 3 Cdo Bde (I don't think an interservice transfer of headcount had ever happened before). I've previously referred to the changes in training to deal with low flyers in more difficult terrain and the introduction of the pointing stick to provide rapid operator acquisition of tgts. I too am puzzled by supposed excessive heli loads of fuel for Rapier, doesn't make sense, first they don't use much fuel (give 3 days worth, far less than AFVs) and second use rates are easily predicted. My conclusion is the story is crap. However, one of the decisions made was not to deploy any Rapier repair facilties (shortage of shipping space), instead they decided to take lots of spare LRUs and swop them. I suspect this was the real problem that absorbed heli time (and taking techs around). Of course the loss of Chinooks meant heli lift was at a premium so decisions on priorities had to be taken. Since its fairly clear that Arg a/c weren't seriously targeting ground troops (obvious reason, low flying makes tgt acquisition more difficult, so big tgts like ships are more attractive) then putting Rapier deployment lower on the priority makes sense. Comds are paid to make this sort of decision. Of course the question today is why western airforces feel safe above 15,000 feet. Presumably because they are confident they can neutralise med and hy alt SAM, which since they rely on active sensors are very vulnerable. Add to that, UK defence policy is now focused on 'wars of choice', so if there isn't a satisfactory air situation they won't go. This means you need less AD generally. Presumably this was part of the thinking in last year's GBAD review led by a RN 1*. Perhaps the RAF finally concluded that the chance of hostile air getting anywhere near their airfields (which was the RAF Regt AD responsibility) was somewhat unlikely! Be that as it may, current planning seems to envisage no major changes to GBAD for at least 15 yrs (no doubt they'll be some upgrading to HVM and FS C), I think there was something about the future GBAD program being axed. By the time they look again who knows where technology will be but I'll put my money on high energy lasers able to deal cost effectively with anything above bullet size moving through the air, there will then be a resurgence of AD although it will probably called something else. In the meantime HVM and FS C will deal with low level a/c, heli, UAVs, which it is more than capable of doing, particularly in the NEC environment.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/18/2005 3:34:54 PM

1. Heli loads of fuel. "My conclusion is the story is crap." I am more inclined to believe Brigadier Thompson's printed and published "story" than your denial. He says none of the 12 Rapier posts functioned for "several days" after they landed (immediately behind the guns on Day 1), during which time most of the posts had to be moved again, each time requiring most of his avaliable helo force. So all Rapier missed the May 21-23 attacks during which SHAR killed over 25% of Arg sorties. Thompson says that even when Rapier claimed to be "working" the "regular" needs for fuel and technical repair teams required him to dedicate 1 Sea King at all times to support Rapier. Thompson says Rapier was good only for "point defense such as a bridge or other high value target where the attacking aircraft could be engaged head-on or with little deflection" (his words, not mine) and that "Rapier was NOT AN AREA WEAPON since it could not cope with crossing targets at any altitude" (again, his words, my emphasis). I do recommend you study the definitive works on the campaign.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/18/2005 3:41:57 PM

Rapier claimed "officially" in the UK White Paper 14 kills. It is known and documented by reconciliation of Arg losses that Rapier scored 1 kill. Even acknowledging that proximity to water as an added inflator to AAA/SAM claims since the targets cannot be verified (e.g. the same phenomena occurred with coastal AAA during the Battle of Britain), this 14x overclaim is quite extravagant. It also says something about the effectiveness of SACLOS or any launcher-based guidance. "We saw the target and launched, and the missile tracked and....well, we're pretty sure it hit..you know, just as the target disappeared from view. Yeah, that's a "kill", right?"

Quote Reply

flamingknives RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/18/2005 4:35:03 PM

Do we have comparable figures for self-guided SAMs? I contend that the figure says nothing about the effectiveness of SACLOS (although CLOS or ACLOS would be more accurate) as opposed to self-guided missiles. Such weapons, regardless of guidance, will be proximity fused (Starstreak is a bit different) so will go bang when sufficiently close to the target. If it goes bang, then the gunners might claim a kill while the explosion has not severely damaged the target. This is rather more a function of fuse and warhead rather than guidance. In fact, given Worcester's scenario, a self-guiding missile would lead to more false claims: "Well, it was a good lock, and the missile followed the target out of LoS, so that's a kill, right?"

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Neutralizer 8/18/2005 5:29:50 PM

What was the aircraft Rapier shot down then, if it did indeed only score one?

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Yimmy 8/18/2005 8:51:26 PM

"What was the aircraft Rapier shot down then, if it did indeed only score one?" 28th May, 1982 Aircraft: Dagger (Israeli licence production Mirage) Unit: Grupo 6 Location: San Carlos System: Rapier Details: Lt Bernhardt, FAA (pilot) killed, did not eject.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:UK SAM Order of Battle - Yimmy 8/18/2005 9:09:19 PM

Well, at least it gets credit for one of their nicer aircraft then. Shame about the pilot.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT