UK SAM capabilities and the future

[SammySu]

Whilst reading the threads on defence of the Falklands and other possible future scenarios, I began to wonder why it is that we in the UK have allowed our SAM capability to dwindle from its heyday in the (late 60's?).

Whilst Field Standard C Rapier is a long way removed from the Rapier that came into service in the early 70's I wonder why we don't have something in our inventory with a bigger stick. SHORAD is fine for point defence of assets but wouldn't it be nice to have some PAC-3 Patriot batteries sat at MPA, or deployed anywhere else we go that might require some meaningful AD?

Whenever we look at potential operations/scenarios the modern double digit SAM is a major factor in what we can do and where/when/how. Isn't this why we are spending so much money on a stealthy, sensor fused F35 rather than some Rhinos/Growlers?

So how come we don't invest in such a useful capability when just about everyone else in the world thinks its a vital cog in their IADGE?

Standfast the RN with T45 and Aster/PAAMs/Sea Viper when its finally working. But that would rely on use of the Littoral, and doesn't the RAF always bang on about friendly basing and deploying to an airfield rather than a ship ASAP?

Thoughts?

[Pontius Navigator]

Sammy, IMHO it is to do with portability and agility and that UK SAM was always an Air Force thing.

We really don't have the airlift capability to take SAM in to a theatre and at the same time deploy aircraft. Aircraft are self-portable whereas a SAM has to be carried.

It is true we could deploy SAM in the FI but at a cost and I guess a cost-benefit analysis shows that aircraft are less expensive.

You cannot to a VID with a missile. You need an accurate target-weapons match. If the potential enemy has, say, 40 offensive platforms then you need at least 80 missiles on the threat axis. If there is more than one threat axis you may need 100 or more for the same threat.

A ship is mobile and can address a 360 degree threat. An aircraft is agile. A SAM system is essentially static. A ship, once it is shot out can retire. A SAM site when shot out is a waste of rations.

[Geehovah]

Money

The requirement was never funded

[Green Flash]

I wonder if we could do a truck mounted SAM using the same missile? (Land Viper?) Mobility would enhance survivability and allow you to re-align onto threat axis. We've got all sorts of wierd and wonderfull truck things in Afg, could one of those be used as the basis? I assume it would need a fire control element, maybe power and other support vehicles.

[Pontius Navigator]

I assume it would need a fire control element, maybe power and other support vehicles.

A threat axis is a defence best guess. The actual attack track will be something else again. A highly mobile SAM is no match for an even more agile attacker.

The other thing is we don't do cheap. The nearest we came to cheap was the MFF mentioned in the F3 thread.

As Geehova said, it was never funded, but indeed we did look at Patriot as a Bloodhound replacement when we withdrew Bloodhound and took a capability holiday :(

[SammySu]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that I am saying we need to move away from. I'm not suggesting we bolt 30 Bloodhounds to the concrete at Woolfox Lodge, mobility isn't really an issue for a modern SAM, how does everyone else deploy theirs? I seem to remember V Corps were moving their's forward with the FLOT during OIF.
Moreover why try and develop our own mobile stratSAM when every man and his dog has one they could sell us off the shelf?
If a third world country can buy and deploy S300 why can't/wouldn't we want to field similar? Again not interested in the 'because we haven't funded/ written a requirement' - I'd like discussion on whether we should make it a future requirement.
I'm going to need educating about threat axis. Last time I checked Patriot had a 360deg MEZ.

[Pontius Navigator]

An S300 TEL is no different than a fighter-bomber - a useless piece of hardware unless it has a logisitics tail - C2, PU and reloads at the very least.

Every man and his dog that deploys the S300 is doing it for defence. UK, it would seem, no longer does defence. We do network centric, expeditionary and agile; until we have a scenario deploy to somewhere like Kuwait to defend against Iraqi hordes we probably don't need an essentially static SAM system.

If we were deploying a field army against a sophisticated air defence system - the 1973 war - then mobile SAM would certainly be needed. In the 1992 war static area defence SAM were needed. Mobile SAM could have been useful except they chose to achieve Air Supremacy instead.

The only relevant scenario right now is FI. While there are other hot spots it is difficult to think of one where long or medium range SAM would be needed.

[Squirrel 41]

PN, SaSu

I agree that the reason that we don't currently have an area defence rather than merely the Ultra SHORAD (USHORAD?) is simply financing (and the fact that such a system hasn't been built by BAES / MBDA yet).

We could sensibly use a long-range SAM system in FI, but it's presumably a function of the threat and cash.

S41

[SammySu]

MBDA are part of the partnership developing the replacement for Patriot, Hawk and Nike Hercules using the PAC-3 MSE.

Extremely portable, air moveable, immediately ready for use on arrival.

I can defeat/manage an air threat. I have to step around an S300 or Patriot. Yes it needs a supply tail, so does everything else from Raptor to the infantry to the girls in the EFE.

I just find it strange that it's the first factor to consider when planning an offensive sortie, but isn't in our defensive mix.

Apart from the Bloodhound replacement does anyone know if we have ever seriously considered area defence in our doctrine - is it really too expensive to consider using in the FI with/instead of Rapier?

Google MEADS International

[Modern Elmo]

The only relevant scenario right now is FI. While there are other hot spots it is difficult to think of one where long or medium range SAM would be needed.


Patriot, THAAD, and any follow-ons to Patriot or THAAD are and will be both anti-aircraft and also anti-missile systems. They are ari defense systems, in the current jargon.

The scenario in which UK expeditionary forces will need such air defenses is when UK forces are threatened with theater range or medium range ballistic missile attack. Don't worry, Uncle Sugar will provide the missile defense umbrella.

Google MEADS International


Medium Extended Air Defense for NATO nations has been talked about for about the last twenty-five years. It boils down to improved networking communications plus whatever is the latest version of Patriot and the Patriot radar system, including tilt-up vertical launchers for better 360 degree coverage. In other words, MEADS is an export version of the Patriot system, to be shared with NATO nations.

Doesn't "Medium Extended" sound like timid committee work that's not really going to happen? One reason why the MEADS program is so constipated, aside from money, is that Eurovolk are shy about getting into missile defense.

[Modern Elmo]

By the way, all that Argie-threat-to-the-Falklands stuff makes you gentlemen seem smaller and smaller.

I suggest that you fret about a bigger potential foe.

[Rakshasa]

That's the funny thing about being an island off the coast of a now largely peaceful europe. Whack job regimes like Iran and N.Korea are in short supply. The only threats we have to worry about domestically are asymetric and a posturing Ivan or potential threats to our overseas territories.

Amazingly odd then that its those things that come up in conversation. :rolleyes:

[Evalu8ter]

If I was cynical (big if...) then I'd also add that perhaps the RAF brass were afraid that a Patriot capability would undermine the Typhoon project in a Sandys-esque fashion. Yes, you'd always need some jets for QRA/VID, but not as many if you had a multi-layered defence of Typhoon, Patriot, Rapier....plus a T45 lurking in the North Sea during TTW. Like I say, if I were a cynic...

[Pontius Navigator]

As I said, the RAF is wedded to air mobility, agility and offence. Patriot etc are essentially static and defensive and indeed vital during GW1.

UK does not face that scenario right now but if it did then as ME correctly states, we would be under Uncle Sam's umbrella singing in the rain.

[Geehovah]

If I was cynical (big if...) then I'd also add that perhaps the RAF brass were afraid that a Patriot capability would undermine the Typhoon project in a Sandys-esque fashion. Yes, you'd always need some jets for QRA/VID, but not as many if you had a multi-layered defence of Typhoon, Patriot, Rapier....plus a T45 lurking in the North Sea during TTW. Like I say, if I were a cynic...

I was in MOD at the time and Typhoon was as safe as it ever was during its (long) gestation. In fact, in those days we were still talking of the full buy. The trouble was when MSAM was being staffed it was the early days of the money running out. "Addbacks and realism measures" (remember those?) were becoming rare and the Bloodhound replacement simply fell off the bottom of the list every year. Work went on and a desk officer was kept busy but it was just never funded. Simple priorities I'm afraid.

[glad rag]

be under Uncle Sam's umbrella singing in the rain*** Note some "bad" language at the end, somebody wants something, like yesterday.

IqTyafBaDYM&feature=related

[MAINJAFAD]

Was told by a boss down south back in 88/89 (who was on a DWR from MoD main building), that we very nearly got Patriot back in 87/88 (most likely some truth in this as a Patriot Radar, ECS and other C2 elements sprung up at West Raynham overnight in early 1988 (plus shed loads of visitors)). From what I can gather, the brass was not too impressed with the systems coverage (basic Patriot's range was a fraction of Bloodhound 2, plus the fact that three Radar / ECS / launcher combinations were required to give 360 coverage at any one time), hence the procurement didn't happen back then. Had MSAM ever happened in the 1990's, The BAe entry was Patriot (in conjunction with Raython) with a system, which allowed the Patriot ECS to also engage close in targets with collocated Rapier FSC (even with this cut down system compared with the standard US Army battery, the deployment footprint was huge). The other system on offer was a GEC/Hughes system based on ground launched AMRAAM. To be honest the RAF was never really interested in SAM, and only took them on due to the Army not allowing the RAF to take operational control of Army AAA/SAM units in UK defence in the early 1950's, as they had big concerns about long range SAM being shot into the middle of their air battles (Red Duster (Bloodhound) being an Army weapon until 1952/3).