Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The end of Rapier and RAF Regiment AD.
Biffa    9/17/2004 3:40:16 PM
I recently learnt that the RAF Regiment will be soon disbanding its Rapier squadrons. WHY?.It is not long since we have updated to FSC and tests clearly show that Rapier is one of the most accurate and reliable short range air defence missile platforms in the world.What will hapen to the personel?, 15SQRN, 16SQRN, 26 and 37SQRN plus all the training units?. will the army take over airfield defence with its mobile units?. if so will it be as effective, as to my knowledge mobile Rapier dosent have a blind fire capability. any thoughts? ps i am a posting virgin, be gentle.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Massive    RE:RBS-70 - AG   12/4/2004 10:11:46 AM
Fair enough. Hence the HUMRAAM for static units only. Fair point. Massive.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Worcester if I where British mod   12/5/2004 7:23:39 PM
"I'm not sure where you get your fighter/SAM ratios; certainly not from US Land Air Doctrine." No, only an example to show you that a single modern fighter cost the price of 40 modern medium SAM including battery equipments like launchers and radars.Even if 10 % reach their objective it is still much more cost effective. However system already deployed lack of anti SEAD protection like secondary multitarget thermal IR tracker and director.And also missiles lack of energy.It explains low success with the fact that almost all missiles in recent conflict were quite obsolete. Mobile missile along armored units would prevent massacre of armor by air force we have seen in recent conflicts.Especially since fighters attack from medium/high altitude rendering short range defense useless. ""Base support" in France 2000 crews on 60 000.IN Sweden you have 30 people by plane vs roughly 70 in France or UK or US! In fact you need 2 officers, 6 maintenance technician and 3 weapon NCO by plane.Then engineers to repair tracks, offices, protection etc... Calculus show that 30 is enough in peace time or in foreign deploiements.In war time some reserve protection troops could be added. A lot of people in offices!TOO MUCH! 120 useless people equal 1 more plane purchased and active.25000 useless people in French air force cost us 200 active fighters including their crews and direct support people! "Patriots used by reserve troops" Often you don't need them while a few percent of men needs continuous training.Protection troops are unlikely to see first line combat.Cost much less to be part of reserve and used if needed. On Patriot: an example but ASTER 30 is too short range compare to patriot (but better in antimissile role).However an ASTER 50 could be good (with a larger booster). But both should be mounted of highly mobile and protected vehicules, with antiSEAD decoys and secondary passive director. Last point: calculate how much cost a fighter to be projected overseas vs a battery of 36 medium SAM including kerosen (A fighter could use 450 t in a 30 day campaign)!It allows fighters to be used in a larger proportion in supporting troops and striking role. A 150 fighter/6000 M-SAM would be good for a country expecting to be defending itself agaisnt US/UK. For France or UK a 250 fighter/2000 M-SAM is a better ratio today.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Worcester if I where British mod - FS   12/5/2004 7:37:36 PM
It is innaccurate to simply compare fighters and SAM's based on reletive cost. SAM's, irrespective of their mobility are purely a defensive system, wheras modern fighters have a far broader range of applications. Most decent military forces nowdays will use their fighters to destroy the enemy on the ground, or at least to hit his runways and temporarily keep him their. SAM's are just a backup, in case offensive counter-air operations don't come off as planned. By suggesting such a large invesmnet in SAM's, you are entrenching a defeatest mindset which only gives you the hope of causeing enough attrition to make the enemy give up. Recent history has shown that this looses wars to modern air forces. Even passive detection technology guiding your SAM's won't change this, as modern sensors and stnad-off weaponary can detect and hit medium SAM sites, which are inherantly largish targets, as effectivey as a HARM can.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Worcester if I where British mod - FS   12/6/2004 9:44:02 AM
Medium SAM sites make little larger a target than manpads based on vehicles. They can be fully mobile, all they need are more vehicles for the search radar and re-supply trucks. I don't mean to sound like I agree with the defence white paper of 1957; but I think you are overestimateig the effectiveness of manned aircraft against newer technologies, such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, SAM's, and UAV's. There are very few (if any) jobs today which only a manned aircraft can undertake. Current technology may mean that manned aircraft are still largelly the most efective in many roles, however I think we are moving in a direction which will mean in the mid-future, manned aircraft will be obsolete. I think mobile medium range SAM systems such as the Israeli Spyder are just as capable of denying the use of the air to the enemy as a short range air-superiorty fighter is; especially when you look at the costs involved for the two.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Aussigunner   12/6/2004 11:36:26 AM
We are not in the time of SA2 and nike Ajax.Today medium SAM can be fully mobile as every light armored vehicule.Networking allow them to disperse a battery on hundred square miles. If you are able to protect your troops you can conduct even offensive without air support thank to armor and modern artillery. Maybe US are able to get air superiority almost everytime but it could no be the case for other armies.And if you want to defend agaisnt US you need air protection. Plane are more versatiles but a squadron dedicated to air defense will not do bombing in the same time. You have an obsolete view on possibilities of SAM even it is true that we did not encounter a potent air defense since 30 years.For a simple reason: the only provider was soviet union and since the collapse of wall soviet union did not gave this kind of system to rogue states.Only Greece, China and India had access to modern systems and even it wasn't the most sophisticated(customer which have money and where US pressure where not relevant). Today no country could expect to earn air superiority vs US and without air cover they can give up their armies unless of course they have a robust system.Syria SAM defense for example would last 20 minutes only according to Soviet themselves (to see how it is today obsolete). Only SA300 , Patriot2 and ASTER30 are modern system today but they lack of SEAD protection and secondary passive and antistealth guidance system.Aster30 is even a little to short range. The minimum specification today would be a 60 km range against 5 g manouvering aircraft at 500kts (F22), and jamproof secondary guidance system, and most SAM are completely out.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Son of SAM-Aussiegunner: medium SAM on point duty   12/6/2004 2:16:38 PM
Medium SAM for point duty in rear areas against CM. If you (A) KNOW the target and (B) KNOW the direction of approach by CM then a medium SAM could be useful in releasing aircraft if positioned PRECISELY in the threat axis. BUT, and given your expertise in artillery & missile matters, I believe you'll agree that KNOWING both A and B is unlikely. For example, if the location is an airfield, the targets could be (1) control tower, (2) radio/radar masts, (3) aircraft shelters, (4) ordnance/fuel facilities (usually separate from aircraft and (5) offices/accomodation. Spread these out over several square miles of land and even if you KNOW the CM approach you will still need a SAM network which covers EACH possible target, hence say 5 launchers; if there are two different CM approach routes then you need twice as many...it just gets worse. Anything less and you're back to high crossing rates so the SAMs will miss. The real problem with cruise is it ignores the greatest part of ground-fire - i.e. fear. It's a bit like a suicide bomber - we can construct a defense which assumes people will want to get away; but it's much more difficult against a machine which doesn't care. It doesn't get put off by ground fire unless you actually hit it. What is needed is some means of forcing CM to use predictable approach routes. You may well find that the most cost-effective way of dealing with CM and aircraft even in rear areas is AAA cannon. These require a lot of crews and a lot of (cheaper) ammunition, rather than the fewer crews and fewer (expensive) SAM systems. Perhaps I am too cynical in suggesting that military budget planners will tend to go for a system with less manpower and more expensive ordnance, especially if the missiles are rarely fired. SAMs are much lower through-life operating cost. Now, if we had conscription.....
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Son of SAM-Aussiegunner: medium SAM on point duty   12/6/2004 2:33:51 PM
"if there are two different CM approach routes then you need twice as many...it just gets worse" Modern SAMs have 360 degree coverage(except Patriot where you need 3 radars to have 360 degree coverage). I agree that AA modern gun are valuable assets especially agaisnt cheap stand off weapons like JDAM with proper firecontrol and radars, but they are unable to cover medium altitude threats. It is funny that you put so emphasys in saying that T45 are able to replace the loss of FA2 to cover British fleet but you refuse that for RAF and army. BTW today cruise missile are easier to shoot down because their maneouvrability is limited. You use experiences of wars from 1982 to Iraq to dismiss medium SAM but you simply don't realise that airforce performance was again OBSOLETE systems.It is why US air force favored medium altitude attack to avoid short range systems and guns. At least Patriot shown that it was a potent sytem in last war again allied aircrafts! Wait for a war against a country with a modern and layerered SAM system and your view would change.Read my former posts.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Fr Strat   12/6/2004 2:39:14 PM
Thankyou for the data. I regret I dont agree with your definition of "cost effective". SAM cost vs fighter cost does not include their different effectiveness. Even if a SAM/AAA system generates 10% attrition against enemy sorties (in practice <1%), then the basic effective measurement is 10+ SAM systems = 1 fighter. In reality, with the continued reduction in SAM effectiveness and the increased mobility of fighters, 1 fighter is worth more than 10 SAM, possibly even 100 SAM. As for overseas deployments, fighters can fly there themselves while SAM will require cargo space which could better be used for land force equipment. It is yet another peice of purely defensive baggae which contributes minimally to the Offensive Air campaign - destroying the enemy on the ground, BEFORE he gets airborne. Instead of trying to correlate the relationship as SAM : fighter, perhaps we can find it more useful simply to recognize that SAM will be more useful in some situations than others but that a fighter will always be at least 10x - 100x more "effective" and a strike fighter more effective than this. Hit them on the ground before they get airborne.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Worcester if I where British mod - Aussiegunner   12/6/2004 2:42:43 PM
Offensive Air Ops - Counter Air Missions Just read your post to FS re "defeatist mindset"...we must have attended the same lectures or read the same Land-Air policy docs!
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Worcester if I where British mod - Aussiegunner/WC/FS   12/6/2004 3:01:01 PM
WC, I haven't attended any lectures on air warfare lately, but Air Vice Marshall Angus Housten, Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force has recently put out a paper on Australia's F-35 purchase that puts offensive counter-air as the top aircraft killer in the future. FS, I guess that given your stated aim is to be able to defend against the US, an attrition based defense might be the best option. This is because nobody is going to beat the US at their own game, ie, offensive counter-air operations. This relies on the development of SAM technologies that the US can't counter with some type of SEAD operation or which can find its growing fleet of stealthy aircraft, UAV's and cruise missiles. Basically, good luck. Countries would be better off not to get into fights with the US and concentrate their efforts on being able to defeat any smaller threats they face.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics