Two questions:

 

1) Are you referring specifically to GBAD? Or fighters as well?

 

2) What kind of threat are you facing? One faced by Israel? That faced by New Zealand (that is virtually no threat)? Even that faced by Iran? The threat faced by Sri Lanka or Columbia (insurgents etc)?

 

 

 

 

1) I was indeed referring specifically to GBAD. That's because I believe I already know the approximate answer for fighters: one needs to be able to keep two fighters in the air indefinitely to provide the most rudimentary air defense. This requires at least a squadron of fighters - probably along the lines of 12 aircraft (sub-sonic light jet aircraft that double as trainers should probably suffice; as to propeller aircraft, I have no clue, but I have not heard of them being used in fighter roles for decades even in 'cheap' armed forces, so I guess there are good reasons for that) along with all the associated command, maintanance and repair personnel (the number of whom I admittedly have no clue about). For the most rudimentary effective GBAD, however, I have very little knowledge of the types and numbers of equipment that would be necessary.

2) I deliberately avoided mentioning the scale of the threat, as I reasoned that even if the threat is great, the minimal AD might at least force it to fly higher, to waste resources on AD suppression and simply undermine certainty of freedom of air operations. I guess if I had to specify a level of threat, since I am talking about minimum effective air defense, I would specify the level of threat as low. Perhaps akin to the minimal air force (one squadron of 12-24 light aircraft/trainers) I described above plus some helicopters (say another squadron of 12-24) of various types.

 

Hmm, I guess at some level even assault rifles, GPMGs and other infantry and non-AD weapons, especially when massed, provide some AD capability against very low flying targets.

Well I guess the minimal level of GBAD which would be meaningful would be a couple of dozen MANPADs such as Iglas or Stingers or the larger "crew served MANPADs" such as Mistral or RBS-70. These probably wouldn't shoot down many enemy aircraft, but, as was seen over Kosovo, the mere threat of MANPADs kept opposition aircraft above 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Even with GPS/INS guided JDAMs (or equivalent) which can be targeted (by modern EO/IIR/laser range finder pods) and released above 15,000 feet, the enemy air force will become less effective from that altitude.
 
Alternatively, if more money was available, a larger vehicle mounted SAM with an integrated/organic surveillance radar could be effective for persistent point defense. The Russian Pantsyr might be a good example.
 
The Pantsyr:
* Has good altitude coverage thanks to its two stage design. It can thus reach fast jets at 20,000 to 30,000 feet.
* Has a pair of 30mm Gatling guns as well as six to 12 57E6 command to line of sight guided missiles. This would be useful to target smaller, shorter range, targets such as UAVs and to provide an inner line of defense against PGMs.
* Has its own surveillance radar and can thus operate autonomously, with its radar cueing its weapons, in all weathers.
* Can utilize a relatively simple electro optical/laser range finder based fire control system as well as an all weather radar based targeting system. Indeed some export versions of the Pantsyr only have an EO FCS.
* Can have all its components mounted on a wheeled or tracked vehicle, thus allowing it to protect mobile army formations as well as point targets such as airfields or power stations.

* Can be used in a light direct fire support role as well, both the 30mm guns and the CLOS guided missiles.
* Is available in a Naval form, offering potential economies of scope and cross service use.
 
Maybe it is not the most sophisticated short range mobile GBAD. And it lacks a non line of sight guidance option such as terminal IIR homing. But it is likely to be cheaper than western options, robust and simple to operate, and effective against a threat such as the one you describe.

 

See Army Techology.com:

H t t p://w w w.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/

When you have very few money, the only reasonable air defense are short range MANPADs.

It compells plane to fly above 5000 m and reduce their efficiency.

High altitude air defense cost 12 time more for the same number of missiles.

Before going to high altitude air defense, I would invest in decoys and jammers especially GPS jammers.

Cost of a MANPADs missile : 200 000 $ = 0,2 m$

Cost of a high altitude/long range SAM: 3 m$ including its radar and support share.

Cost of a jammer: from 200 000 $ to 10 m$.

I would invest in Mistral Manpads as it is much more performant than a Stinger or an Igla.

Or a mix of Mistral and RBS70

For medium range affordable system with a coverage of medium high altitude, I would go to the RBS23 Bamse with its very high cost effectiveness ratio.Indeed the cost per round is about 0,5 m$ instead of 3 for a conventional long range SAM, is unjammable and still offer a coverage to 12/15 000 m.

h*tp://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/specs.html

 

 

Hello french stratege,

 

I quite like the BAMSE, for at least three reasons:

1) Its C band Giraffe AMB active phased array multi beam radar is an excellent surveillance radar.

2) Its two stage design, giving greater altitude coverage.

3) Its apparent capability against almost all aerial targets including manned fast jet combat aircraft, cruise missiles, UAVs, PGMs such as JDAMs, and even artillery rockets and short range ballistic missiles.

 

But it has not been selling has it? BAMSE has only been purchased by Sweden. Correct? Whereas SLAMRAAM and Spyder/Derby/Python based SAMs have been purchased recently by Spain, The Netherlands, several services in the US, India, and I think Estonia or one of the Baltic countries. And the Swedish Navy recently ordered the South African Umkhonto IIR terminally guided SAM for the Visby class "stealth corvettes". Over the more obvious choices of BAMSE or even ESSM.

 

What evidence do you have for BAMSE having a "very high cost effectiveness ratio"? I can see that a command guided SAM might be a lot cheaper than an active radar terminally guided SAM such as SLAMRAAM. Is that the reason for its cost effectiveness? Then again a single stage IIR homing SAM such as Python or IRIS-T SL might be cheaper than BAMSE, though lower altitude and shorter range.

 

I also have the opinion that one very important new differentiator between GBADs or SAMs would be integration with an aerostat AEW radar. And I think JLENS/SLAMRAAM and the Elta aerostat radar and Derby might have the advantage here.

 

 

Is that the reason for its cost effectiveness? Then again a single stage IIR homing SAM such as Python or IRIS-T SL might be cheaper than BAMSE, though lower altitude and shorter range.

A BAMSE Bolide ammunition is much cheaper than a Python or IRIS-T if we assume an identical order in  numbers.

However BAMSE lack the capacity of countering massive attacks to defend value targets like a ship.

With BAMSE you accept that a powerfull adversary will still give you casualties but overall you attrit him for extended time.

With a medium short range defense like Derby , or IRIS, you counter a sudden attack but you have no sustainability once your few ammuntions are exhausted.And it is not cost effective to shoot down ammuntions like cruise missiles of JDAM and this while an adversary is still free to deliver them in altitude unpunisihly.

Also Swedish do not export due to their own regulation to a lot of countries and NATO members look more for short range defense due to overall air superiority NATO have.

They seek for low level air defense to supplement existing air coverage in altitude by air forces and to counter the few massive desperate raids undetected an opponent could do before having no aviation at all.

BAMSE concept is to deploy a barrier covering high altitude and to protect spot area of high value items like a tank concentration or a spread airfield.The enemy will still shoot some tanks or planes on the ground but take losses in the attrition game.

I prefer having a force of 3000 Bolide missiles than 1000 IRIS.

But I would prefer having a mix 2000 Bolide missiles and 400 IRIS.But I don't see Sweden investing in two systems now.

See the price: A Bolide missile less than 100 000 $ , a IRIS about 280 000, an AMRAAM about 400 000 (plus electronic update at midlife), a long range missile excess a million $ (and add costly radars vulnerable to SEAD).

Hello french stratege,

 

Thank you for your replies. It is interesting to talk to someone who is interested in, and knowledgeable on, GBAD. Most westerners merely brush over GBAD in favour of fighters!

 

Anyhow,

 

Are you sure you are not confusing the RBS-23 BAMSE with the RBS-70 Bolide? BAMSE is the two stage, all weather, CLOS guided, high altitude SAM. RBS-70 is the laser beam riding "crew served MANPADs" sold to many countries including Australia.

No I did not confuse RBS70 and BAMSE Bolide.

I have myself discussed directly to SAAB chief engineer and ask him why they did not design a longuer range ACLOS missile.He said me it was possible but not necessary as it is used as a barrier I mean that goal is not to extend coverage above unfriendly territory. RBS23 batteries are spread, interconnected and overlap.

Bolide missile is light and cheap.And really this kind of missile is maybe more dangerous to a F22 if guided passively than a Patriot. 

I think that adding to BAMSE some Mica or IRIS could make sense to counterattack.

Swedish requirement was clearly to attrit and disrupt operation of a well PGM equiped ennemy in superior numbers (Russians).

 

Add an aerostat based AEW radar.

 I dislike the idea in war time as it can be detected at long range.And a radar is costly.

I would prefer a UAV helo able also to carry GPS jammer in an other version or to tow a HARM jammer.

However Giraffe and datalinked AWAC coverage allow to detect at low altitude.

 

Who are you VGNTMH? American?Military?

Your comment was quite right.

I would easily combined light ACLOS RBS23 like missile with high altitude plus more limited number of Mica/Derby/IRIST with second stage derivative or Active ESSM (with AMRAAM autodirector)

A missile not too heavy and less than 600 000 $ for EW and 400 000 $ for IR version, to counter saturating attacks with a 20 000 m altitude coverage.

Hello french stratege,

 

Sorry I haven't replied for a while. I was away for the weekend.