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
french stratege    RE: RAF Regt, Rapier/FSC, Hawk: Fr Strat   12/3/2004 4:54:50 PM
"YOU know that mobile warfare will always overcome fixed defenses " Yes but medium SAM can protect axis of counteroffensive or main axe of defense, protect areas of depots and are more efficient for an army which can not have enought plane to achieve air superiority.(and it is why I suggest to keep planes and get antiairfield cruise missiles). At least it disrupt attack and lower their effect. "In fact no western army has been exposed to modern air defense since the 1970s." I should have add to modern medium range air defense. A crotale or Roland (which shot down a harrier too close ) is unefficient against medium altitude aircraft.Swedish recognized that and it is why they move to BAMSEE (still short range but with a better energy and altitude coverage). If Iraqis had modern airdefense including medium and modern antitank/tank/artillery/C4ISR plus will to fight, US would have got much more losses. "Former Yugoslavia had a very good air defense system - wasn't a problem in Kosovo." Not so modern and as it wasn't really deployed in Kosovo... And Syrian SAM 6 were a joke in 82. In fact no western army has been exposed to modern LAYERED (including medium/long), MOBILE and ROBUST (including anti SEAD, high energy missiles and high multitargeting) air defense since the 1970s. And at the end the problem still there to British. I would add that medium air defense is lighter to deploy overseas than planes, well suited to be used by reserves (so cost even less in peace time), so you can concentrate your plane on bombing in a oversea war.Exactly why still a priority to german, french and Italian (Aster30). For a medium army to defend , what do you prefer: 6000 top medium SAM +150 topfighters or 300 fighters without SAM? PS : I would also suggest mobile medium SAM which can be move and deployed quickly by helos.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    if I where British mod   12/3/2004 5:03:48 PM
"As for the RAF Regt, sure they'll complain; what are they waiting for? The Red air force? And if you want to blame the manpower cuts blame the RAF Commanders who kept too much base land...didn't they understand the MOD accounting system? That's why the bases and manpower are being cut so hard. Too much real estate, too little work. " I agree but if I where British I would have withdraw more Jaguar to keep the FA2 along the GR9, and buy a dozen of updated patriot 2 batteries used by reserve troops. Also streamline base support.having 70 men per plane is a little too much! You need only few dozen radar operators to stay active on a 800 men Patriot bataillon. Always a problem of arbitrage between services!
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:if I where British mod   12/3/2004 5:21:34 PM
"Argentina used Crotale and Roland in 1982 - not good - the Rheinmetall cannon were more effective." Worcester, there is no need to get tetchy. And I would question some of your 'facts', including the above. As far as I know, no harriers were actually destroyed by anti-aircraft artillery in the Falklands war, all I know of is one Harrier with a hole in the tail. My argument is by no mean emotional! I am simply rather surprised that you are so stubbon as to not see a place for the medium range SAM, a system which can be as mobile as an IFV, and yet be far more effective than a manpad based on a similar if slightly smaller platform. Manpads simply do not have the effectiveness which you dream of.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:if I where British mod   12/3/2004 7:21:11 PM
"If I were British I would withdraw more Jaguar to keep the FA2 along with GR9" Agree with you tactically, but we should note FA2/GR9 are very different aircraft. FA2 is a GR3 airframe without the "big wing" which gives GR9 twice the range or twice the payload; it also turns faster than an FA2. Since they have over 70 GR7/9 airframes and use just 40, they should have used 30 with FA2 equipment to make an FA3. Or just kept FA2. But then, GR9 itself is an effective in a fight - if only it had AMRAAM. "always a problem of arbitrage" Yes. I suspect the RN are quite pleased not to spend more money and Joint Harrier Force is a very efficient use of resources until F-35 appears. And the RAF have to find a use for that huge order of 242 Typhoons! "Base support" Only 4% of the US air force are air crew which I thought pathetic until I discovered that RAF aircrew are 1.5% of total. What's the number for the Armee de l'Air? "Patriots used by reserve troops" Buy a new system for the reserve troops? Doesn't that just say you dont expect it to be used? I'm not sure Patriot is quite as good as you think. Why not convert Aster? And as for UK reserve artillery troops, they are filled with heavy inventory (MLRS etc) already, as well as pulling duty in Iraq, etc. I'm not sure where you get your fighter/SAM ratios; certainly not from US Land Air Doctrine. The unavoidable fact is that for 90 years fewer and fewer aircraft are shot down by ground systems and more and more by fighters. The greatest value of SAM/gun defense is at the front of the battle. Using medium SAM to protect axes of advance is just not going to happen - if you dont have air supremacy or even local air superiority you wont be advancing at all. Sure we use Patriot in the reseves, precisely because it is an unlikely mission. Sure we used some in 1991 but very few in 2003. P.S. The RN Harrier who got shot by a Roland in 1982 was circling 8km from Stanley airport trying to get a target when he SAW the Roland launch, though he was out of range and "slowly climbed away seeing the Roland fall beneath him"; very lucky shot t extreme range and the pilot was very nearly court martialled - that's how stupid it was. Much more effective were the radar controlled Rheinmetall cannons which shot down 2 RAF GR3s moving very fast at very low level.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:if I where British mod   12/3/2004 7:28:46 PM
“I agree but if I where British I would have withdraw more Jaguar to keep the FA2 along the GR9.” The entire Jaguar fleet will be withdrawn over the next few years as those squadrons currently operating the Jaguars will be the first to receive Eurofighter. Also why do we need an aircraft on the front line that is for all intents and purposes inferior to the GR.9A? As for the task that the Rapier and indeed the entire UK SAM network is needed for, Rapier FSC is a perfectly adequate system. We don’t need flexible long range area air defence anymore as the threat is only against isolated soft or ‘point’ targets like airfields abroad. Rapier which is a proven system (credited with 14 kills and 6 probable from a total of 24 missiles fired in the Falklands) is perfect for providing area, 24-hour, all weather, Low-Level Air Defence over the Air-Defended Area which is (per unit) able to cover an Air Defence Area of about 100 sq km. Given the FSC is easily transportable and able to support rapid deployments, it is optimised for the type of deployments the British Armed Forces are gearing towards. Being able to fire two missiles simultaneously means it provides a very efficient ‘goalkeeper’ defence from multiple, stand-off targets like; UAV’s, Cruise Missiles and aircraft with fixed or rotary wings regardless of the weather conditions and in dense ECM or EOCM environments. These properties are aided by it’s Dagger 3D Surveillance Radar which can track and prioritise over 75 targets simultaneously and conduct automatic IFF and it’s Blindfire tracking radar, which provides fully automatic all-weather engagement to a directional range of over 15km. The output is sufficiently powerful to burn through most jamming signals and the radar uses advanced frequency management techniques to evade jamming and other hostile electronic countermeasures. The structure of the UK’s air defence assets outlined in the new defence review will enhance these capabilities across the Armed Forces’ 57 FCS units by introducing the UK GBAD (Phase 1) programme which will integrate the use of the both the Rapier FSC‘s and the Starstreak High Velocity Missile (HVM) systems into a joint consolidated digital air defence command and control system to protect UK Forces against new airborne threats ranging from cruise missiles to UAV’s. The new Air Defence regiments will be formed by the Royal Artillery. I think the UK has an extremely competent air defence system tailored to meet it’s needs and this integration will allow the qualities of Starstreak and Rapier to complement each other and increase efficiency. Phase 2 of GBAD will come online in the longer term and involve replacing the existing platforms and implementing an additional THAAD capability, possibly through an evolution of the ASTER 30-SAMP/T.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:if I where British mod   12/3/2004 8:04:06 PM
"Manpads simply do not have the effectiveness which you dream of" You are again ignoring the data and falling into the trap (most people do) of thinking ground air defense is measured in aircraft kills. It is measured in the number of enemy aircraft striking a target or interfering with your operations vs the similar effect if you had no ground AD. (1) Since the VAST majority of enemy air is taken out by fighters, the minority is ground-based. (2) Since the greatest effect on operations is always at the front of the battle, and the lighter systems (and cannon, small arms) have a known VOLUME deterrence on enemy air, these systems are more efective in reducing enemy air than any number of semi-fixed medium SAM 5-10 miles behind the lines. For point of illustration, since you mentioned it the UK aircraft lost to Argentine ground fire: 1. Sea Harrier (800 Sqn), Goose Green, 4th May, by 35mm Oerlikon, Lt Taylor RN killed. 2. 2x Gazelles (RM), San Carlos, 11-12 May, by automatic weapons, 3 of 4 killed. 3. Harrier GR3 (1 Sqn), Port Howard, 21 May, by 20mm cannon fire, Flt Lt Glover ejected, captured. 4. Harrier GR3 (1 Sqn), Goose Green, 27 May, by 35mm Oerlikon, Sqn Ldr Iveson ejected, evaded capture. 5. Harrier GR3 (1 Sqn), Nr Port Stanley, 30 May, hit by cannon and automatic ground fire, Sqn Ldr Pook ejected and was rescued from the sea. 6. Sea Harrier (801 Sqn), S of Port Stanley, 1 June, hit by Roland missile, Lt Mortimer ejected, rescued from the sea. Conclusions (a) Point SAM defenses were easily avoided by altitude, distance or topography, but ANY weapons fire close to the battlefield is extremely dangerous. 5 of 6 aircraft were lost over the battlefields in support of GROUND action to GROUND fire; only 1 was lost to SAM and then stupidly for which he was nearly court martialled for "reckless endangerment of his aircraft". To reinforce this conclusion from the UK side, recall that even Blowpipe and Stinger got 3 kills to Rapiers 1. (b) The four GR3 losses represent 2/3rds of the six GR3s which went south; their replacements were the ones which went down in Atlantic Conveyor. This was the highest attrition against UK aircraft and proves what SHORT RANGE systems can do to even the most modern and skillfully flown jets when they are OVER the FRONT LINES.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:if I where British mod: previous message for yimmy   12/3/2004 8:05:16 PM
Should have addressed the previous to you Yimmy.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:RBS-70 - AG   12/3/2004 10:41:21 PM
I guess it is open to interpretation whether the RBS-70 is a true MANPAD. It is man portable, but is a backbreaker from what I can gather. However, its not really that much of an issue, as it is the type of kit that could be dropped off by chopper anyway. As for Hawk 100's, we have those anyway and would probably use them in local area defence. I don't think they would be much chop against cruise missiles though, whereas the Humramm is designed specifically for that threat.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    Son of SAM   12/3/2004 11:12:42 PM
A response to a number of threads. FS, During the Yom Kippur war, the Arab layered SAM network was only effective during the early part of the war, with the medium SAM's driving the IDF fighters down into the 23mm fire for the kill. Once the Israelis got hold of US ARM's, the network was taken apart. Wild Weasal technology was reletively new at that stage and the IDF was new to the tactics, so you can see how a modern Wild Weasal force will have it all over any SAM network you can throw up. Additionally, the Egyptians came unstuck when they tried to go on the offensive and outran thier SAM coverage, illustrating the point that Worchester made about how medium SAM's are not an agile system. Yimmy, The benefit of MANPAD's are that they are cheap, so you can afford lots of them. This characteristic, along with their inherant mobility means that they are a good way to beef up the defence of manouver units, as Worchester has said. To illustrate his point about volume fire you only need to look at the Russian experience in Afganistan, where their airforce was forced to adopt ineffective high-altitude attacks because of all the Stingers the CIA gave to the Muhudajeen. Worchester, I agree with you about the lack of utility of medium SAM's for the defence of manouver units, but wonder what your opinion is of their largely un-tested potential in the defence of fixed facilites against cruise missiles. CM's tend to manouver less than manned aircraft and if you put a SAM system at the site to be defended, you are less likely to have to engage the CM in a crossing engagement. I see them as a potential force multiplier in the face of a mild to moderate CM threat, especially if your fighter force is small. They would be an economical way of allowing all your fighters to be used in offensive air superiority operations, safe in the knowledge that your facilities are being defended against attack by your SAM's. Of course, in a massed CM attack, you would have to keep the fighters back to defend your airfield's, but it seems silly to keep them back for a flight of missiles here or there, when a Hummram launcher at each airfield can do the trick. Thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Son of SAM   12/4/2004 9:31:40 AM
I never knew we lost so many aircraft to cannon; I thought the cannon the Argentinians were using were unguided. I truly believe that medium range SAMs are a far better buy than manpads however; just because they are medium range does not mean they can not be used at the front as I suggest. Manpads may be cheap, but they are so limited I fail to see how they are much better than a GPMG, which is even cheaper still.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics