16 Regt RA - Rapier > SkySabre
 

As per a comment on Twitter, is the hard stand a requirement for operation?

More on SkySabre

Army Unveils Sky Sabre Air Defence System | The British Army (mod.uk)


It is much more than rocket science! | The British Army (mod.uk)

Imagine deploying it onto a beach in, say, FI. Suspect it would be a nightmare.

I suspect they will use their TTPs and not deploy it onto such a vulnerable bit of terrain.

You can tell it was built for the army, they have had to stencil left rear and right rear on the stabilisers lol. I wonder if a tracked variant is in the offing.

Helping the REME fitters out when it's cold, wet, dark, they've been on exercise for weeks eating rations with minimal sleep to satisfy the drivers hours scheme...it's the little things that can save time and effort if they have a HF moment and put them on the wrong way.

That's just forward planning in case the RAF Regiment ever borrow it. Arte et Marte.

How effective was Rapier ? I only recall the initial disastrous performance in the Falklands.

Whether it is or it isn't, in a single area of ops like the FI it makes sense to operate from well-found/hard surfaces during routine ops.
Harrier can land in a field, but routinely used runways; Hercules and A400 have often landed on beaches, but there is a penalty to pay if you do it all the time (as I am sure the engineers on here will confirm).

Not exactly air portable, it looks like they tried to cram it all on the back of three trucks but it wouldn’t fit so they had to add a trailer to squeeze it on. I wonder how l9ng it takes to set it all up.

Was it supposed to be air portable?

It's not a 1:1 for Rapier. It's a different setup with vastly different capabilities.

It's like comparing a pistol with a LMG

Rapier had a lot of issues in the Falklands, The Field Standard A model deployed wasn't the most reliable bit of kit and required field servicing kit to set it up correctly, which was not deployed (as it was vehicle mounted). The siting plan for the defence of San Carlos was done at Malvern and didn't take in any account of what the terrain was actually like at the positions chosen. The system wasn't designed to engage targets below the system and thus anything flying below the fire units could not be engaged. The system was very good against approaching and receding targets but next to useless against high speed crossing ones, and that was most of the targets that Rapier had to deal with between 21st and 26th May 82. One other major obstacle which I've only just become aware of was that Army were told to switch the surveillance radars off on their fire units as it interfered with the radars on board the warships, which pretty much made actually acquiring a target in the first place very difficult. Thus it was a miracle that Rapier got any kills at all (One confirmed and two shared). Most of the flaws were fixed in upgrades to the FSB version and the FSC system was actually a very good bit of kit both operationally and reliably wise.

I'll take that as a probably, in answer to the hard stand being a requirement for operation.

TBF most commentators now recognise that no-one had tested Rapier under the conditions that applied - a rushed embarkation, cross decking , a long sea journey and then deployed on a unprepared hill top in the middle of nowhere and having to work in combat conditions in a a few hours. The fact it eventually worked at all was quite good.

Several other systems didn't work as everyone hoped - but that's what happens when you face the realities of combat rather than tests, exercises and simulations