Liberty air defense system.

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,893
Reaction score
3,942
This was an air defense system based on the M1 chassis. ISTR it had two 25mm guns and ADATS missiles but I can't find anything on it.
 

Attachments

  • liberty_001.jpg
    liberty_001.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 1,304

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,893
Reaction score
3,942
Found a few more pictures in an old magazine. This was proposed as part of the Line Of Site Forward Heavy program from the mid 80s. Liberty was based on the Shahine/Crotale firing unit mounted on an Abrams chassis with 12 rounds loaded and had two 25mm guns. Thomson CSF and LTV was the team proposing it.


IIRC xxxxxx (an OTO 76mm Super Rapid mounted on a Leopard I chassis) was also in the mix.
 

Attachments

  • Liberty 1.jpg
    Liberty 1.jpg
    121.4 KB · Views: 1,936
  • Liberty 2.jpg
    Liberty 2.jpg
    143.6 KB · Views: 2,210

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
55
IIRC Trinity (an OTO 76mm Super Rapid mounted on a Leopard I chassis) was also in the mix.
Wasn't Trinity an advanced Bofors 40mm?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,893
Reaction score
3,942
smurf said:
IIRC Trinity (an OTO 76mm Super Rapid mounted on a Leopard I chassis) was also in the mix.
Wasn't Trinity an advanced Bofors 40mm?

Yeah, I'm going to have to go hunt down the name again. Wouldn't be the first time more than one project had the same name but I'll check it out.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,893
Reaction score
3,942
Not sure if this is the same program or a different interation of the same concept but it appears it at least got to hardware and was called "OTOMATIC".
 

Attachments

  • OTOMATIC.jpg
    OTOMATIC.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 310
  • leopard_034.jpg
    leopard_034.jpg
    46.3 KB · Views: 772
  • leopard_033.jpg
    leopard_033.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 827

Rosdivan

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
12
sferrin said:
This was an air defense system based on the M1 chassis. ISTR it had two 25mm guns and ADATS missiles but I can't find anything on it.

I have a PDF on my computer describing it but I can't remember where I initially got it. Here's a text version of the article though. Pair of 35mm Bushmaster III instead of 25mm though. I'll upload the images in the article that aren't in that version later today.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,893
Reaction score
3,942
You sure on the 35mm? The guns on the model look too small to be 35mm. Tiny compared to the 35mm on a Gepard anyway. ???
 

Rosdivan

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
89
Reaction score
12
sferrin said:
You sure on the 35mm? The guns on the model look too small to be 35mm. Tiny compared to the 35mm on a Gepard anyway. ???

Actually, looking at the article again, it looks like its a different M1 SPAAG proposal. My bad.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
763
sferrin said:
Not sure if this is the same program or a different interation of the same concept but it appears it at least got to hardware and was called "OTOMATIC".

That's the Oto-Melara 76mm Project from the early 1980's. Used the ordinance from the Italian naval gun of the same calibre. It never found a client. Interesting concept to try and take the hitting power out to beyond helicopter ATGM range.

The Rooikat uses a 76mm derived from the same naval gun, but not in automatic.
 

JAZZ

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
297
Reaction score
128
Another gun-missile combination proposed for the americans was the rapier-25mm turret on a Bradley IFV - from an article which also covered the liberty - Thomson CSF and LTV proposal.

There was another 25mm-Roland combination called paladin
 

Attachments

  • UK- BAe Rapier 25mm Bradely.jpg
    UK- BAe Rapier 25mm Bradely.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 748

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,915
Reaction score
1,624
A few details on the FAADS Liberty.

Liberty (White Sands firing trials): AMX-30 hull mounting 6 x Shahine missiles; surveillance radar, a multisensor fire control suite with a tracking radar, FLIR, TV, and integrated IFF.

Liberty I: M1A1 mounting either 6 x Shahine or 12 x VT-1 Liberty missiles and 2 x .50 cal mgs. Called FAADS-M1 by GDLS.

If selected, Liberty I would be the first batch. Liberty II would follow 18 months later.

Liberty II: M1A1 mounting 12 x Liberty missiles and 2 x 25mm Bushmaster. Missiles, TSR 2630 radar antenna, and other systems would be under armour. Mach 3.5 peak velocity and 10 km range for missiles. Crew of two, 27.2 tonnes.

Bradley and M113 Liberty mounts are also mentioned on the JED site.

Other LOS-Forward-Heavy competitors were Martin Marietta/Oerlikon Aerospace with ADATS, (and as JAZZ said) Hughes/Euromissile with Paladin (a Roland development), and UADS (UT/BAe/FMC) with the Advanced Rapier. ADATS won the contest (becoming MIM-146A) but was, of course, cancelled in 1992.

ADATS was to be M113A2-mounted with "Bradley ADATS" to follow. Advanced Rapier was to be similar. "Tracked Rapier" (M113-mount, I think) followed by "Bradley Rapier".

[Mod: The test Paladin mount (with Roland 2s) was to be the M109 hull. Production version would have been Roland 2 or 3 on a Bradley hull. -- JDW Vol7 Issue 24 (21 June 1987)]
 

amsci99

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
239
Reaction score
13
Strange that the West never fielded a tracked air defence system less the Gepard when the Soviet Bloc had the ZSU-24 and later the 2S16 Tunguska. I suppose Hawk AA batteries and Stinger MANPADS were the way to go and were latter replaced by the Patriot Weapon System.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
2,821
Website
beyondthesprues.com
What about the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS) or it's Israeli Machbet derivative?

vulcan04.jpg

machbet.jpg

machbet_5.jpg


On the missile only front you also have the AM-30 Roland derivative:

Roland_009.jpg


Regards,

Greg
 

JAZZ

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
297
Reaction score
128
Lots of stuff on the vulcan SPAAG -

But here is the paladin - roland missile-gun system
 

Attachments

  • US- Paladin Roalnd 25mm.jpg
    US- Paladin Roalnd 25mm.jpg
    27.9 KB · Views: 388

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
8
amsci99 said:
Strange that the West never fielded a tracked air defence system less the Gepard when the Soviet Bloc had the ZSU-24 and later the 2S16 Tunguska.

There was the ill-fated US Roland programme in the late 1970s in which the European SAM system was extensively redesigned at subsystem/module level to conform to US engineering practice. The entire project was steadily given the budgetary 'death of a thousand cuts' until only a handful of units were built and issued only the National Guard.
 

gollevainen

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
74
Reaction score
25
Is there any images of the cancelled Mauler SAM system, the one that led soviets to developt the OSA (SA-8 Gecko)??
 

enrr

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Not sure if this is the same program or a different interation of the same concept but it appears it at least got to hardware and was called "OTOMATIC".
The OTOMATIC it's re-born as Multifunctional Weapons System on turret for Centauro, Dardo or equivalent. The MWS can fire the new guided ammo DART of naval Davide/Strales system
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0908/index.php?startid=20

other picture of the old OTOMATIC
otomatic2ja4.jpg

d0fef24ea16e53e9c990fb14c71cc.jpg
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
265
gollevainen said:
Is there any images of the cancelled Mauler SAM system, the one that led soviets to developt the OSA (SA-8 Gecko)??

Yes.

mauler.jpg


That image appears a bit distorted to me. The next one is better and clearer:

mauler_01.jpg
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Can anybody enlighten me on the relationship of the VT-1 Liberty missile to the Crotale NG system?

Were the twin 25mm autocannons on the definite Libery FAADS hooked up to the radar fire control system? Or where they just intended to be used against helicopters and ground targets?
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,915
Reaction score
1,624
Most sources imply that Liberty and the Crotale NG launch unit are the same thing, both firing the VT-1 hypervelocity missiles developed with LTV for FAADS.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
17,249
Reaction score
6,887
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis said:
amsci99 said:
Strange that the West never fielded a tracked air defence system less the Gepard when the Soviet Bloc had the ZSU-24 and later the 2S16 Tunguska.

There was the ill-fated US Roland programme in the late 1970s in which the European SAM system was extensively redesigned at subsystem/module level to conform to US engineering practice. The entire project was steadily given the budgetary 'death of a thousand cuts' until only a handful of units were built and issued only the National Guard.


1. Army Programs

a. ROLAND Air Defense Missile System

In 1974 the US selected the French-German designed ROLAND II
air defense missile system instead of developing a new US short range
air defense system. Hughes Aircraft Corporation won the bid for
technology transfer, fabrication and test of the US ROLAND. The
three countries have established a joint control committee to insure
a maximum level of standardization between the European and American
configurations, and Norway plans to purchase the US version. ROLAND
entered into production in Europe in 1977, and a US production decision
will be made in 1978. Unanticipated difficulties in the exchange and
translation of detailed technical information, resulting in some US
timetable delays and cost increases, have now been resolved with data
transfer essentially complete.
The restructured program approved by OSD in December 1976
with total RDTE expenditure is planned at $276 million.
b. Short-Range Air Defense

1) ROLAND

ROLAND will replace the fair-weather/daylight
CHAPARRAL system in the Corps and rear areas and is required to
counter the increasing night/adverse weather air threat. The
ROLAND RDT&E program consists of a technology transfer and fabrication
effort from Europe (French/German). The program is a
significant U.S. effort to adopt a foreign-developed major weapon
system to U.S. fabrication and will, therefore, have a major impact
on the future success of weapon system cooperation and standardization
with our NATO Allies. The restructured technology transfer,
fabrication and test (TTF&T) program was approved in December 1976
and is proceeding on schedule to a planned production decision in
September 1978. The first two U.S.-produced missiles were successfully
fired from French-built fire units in December 1977. During the
FY 1978 Appropriation Hearings, the Congress directed that $11.4
million in procurement effort be transferred to the RDT&E program
with appropriate adjustments in funds. Total development cost is now
estimated at $276.4 million (previous $265 million plus $11.4 million).
The FY 1979 RDT&E request is $22.7 million, and the procurement
request Is $200.1 million.


THE FY 1979 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
960
Reaction score
662
Kadija_Man said:
gollevainen said:
Is there any images of the cancelled Mauler SAM system, the one that led soviets to developt the OSA (SA-8 Gecko)??

Yes.

mauler.jpg


That image appears a bit distorted to me. The next one is better and clearer:

mauler_01.jpg

What were the dimensions of the Mauler system when closed down for travel?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
17,249
Reaction score
6,887
Again on the subject of Roland, and western tracked air defence systems in general:
6.1 Air Defense Missile Systems based upon the Leopard Main Battle Tank (Studies)
In 1978, under contract by the Dutch Company, Hollandse Signaalapparaten BV., Krauss-Maffei completed a feasibility design study. The objective of the study was to investigate mounting a surface-to-air Missile Tank Turret on a modified Leopard MBT chassis. Three different types of missiles were considered:
6.1.1. "Roland" Surface-to-Air Missile Turret
By considerable retention of most of the standard CA 1 turret, a fully autonomous, air defense missile system was created. In all it was planned that the complete system would carry ten, ready-to-fire "Roland" Anti-Aircraft Missiles. Besides which, for self-defense purposes two 7.62 mm FN Machine Guns and two "Swingfire" Anti-Tank Missiles were proposed. The three man crew concept of the CA 1 was retained. In the roof of the turret the standard Gunner's periscope was replaced by an optronic missile Tracking Unit.
6.1.2. "Rapier" Surface-to-Air Missile Turret
Also with this concept the CA 1 turret remained practically unchanged, two laterally mounted missile launchers replacing the 35 mm cannon. Each launcher containing five of these British developed surface-to-air missiles ready to fire. The means of self-defense which were provided being identical which were proposed for the "Roland" concept. Again the standard Gunner's periscope was replaced by an Optronic Tracking Unit.
6.1.3. "Chaparral" Surface-to-Air Missile Turret
The "Chaparral" lightweight, supersonic, surface-to-air missile requires no guidance after launching, an infrared target seeker head serves this purpose. "Chaparral" is a derivative of the "Sidewinder" AIM-9D air-to-air missile. Eight "Chaparral" missiles (4 on each side) could be stowed in armored launchers on the almost standard CA 1 turret (Guns removed as in both other concepts). Once again, for self-defense purposes two "Swingfire" Anti-Tank Missiles were included in the concept. As target tracking was unnecessary due to the missile infrared seeker, the Gunner periscope remained standard, only an additional "black-box" adaptor was necessary for providing guidance for the "Swingfire" missiles.
found what you were looking for in the Gepard book
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
17,249
Reaction score
6,887
The Secretary of Defense's 1985 cancellation of the SGT York Air Defense Gun dealt a serious blow to the Army Air Defense community's plan to correct serious materiel deficiencies for air defense of divisional forces in the forward area. Long an area of insignificant Army resourcing, forward area air defense drew increasing attention during the 1970-1980 period with the recognition of rapidly-growing Soviet air capabilities. In particular, Soviet attention to, and resourcing of, a family of heavily-armed antitank helicopters highlighted the problem of inadequate active air defenses for the division. Threat community projections of the ability of future Soviet helicopters to hover and engage at stand-off ranges doomed the expensive and problem-riddled SGT York program. Yet with that cancellation, the Department of Defense further widened the serious vulnerability gap between US maneuver force air defense capabilities and the air threats targeted against them.

In recognition of the seriousness of the problem, the Secretary of Defense directed a thorough combined arms audit of forward area air defense threats and capabilities. This priority study resulted in the his 1986 approval of the FAADS Program. Far more than a substitute for the SGT York, FAADS represented long overdue recognition by the Defense community that air defense of divisional forces was, and remains, a serious deficiency warranting priority resourcing. From the SGT York test, the Defense community learned that "one weapon alone, or even multiple weapons acting independently, cannot defeat the air threat." FAADS Is consequently based on a "system of systems" which Integrates five complementary components: a Line-of-Sight Forward (LOS-F) (Heavy) system; a Line-of-Sight Rear (LOS-R) system; a Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) system; an ADA C3 System; and a Combined Arms Initiative (CAI) element by which non-ADA battlefield systems gain enhanced anti-air capabilities.
(References left out for clarity)
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,239
Reaction score
788
The Secretary of Defense's 1985 cancellation of the SGT York Air Defense Gun dealt a serious blow to the Army Air Defense community's plan to correct serious materiel deficiencies for air defense of divisional forces in the forward area. Long an area of insignificant Army resourcing, forward area air defense drew increasing attention during the 1970-1980 period with the recognition of rapidly-growing Soviet air capabilities. In particular, Soviet attention to, and resourcing of, a family of heavily-armed antitank helicopters highlighted the problem of inadequate active air defenses for the division. Threat community projections of the ability of future Soviet helicopters to hover and engage at stand-off ranges doomed the expensive and problem-riddled SGT York program. Yet with that cancellation, the Department of Defense further widened the serious vulnerability gap between US maneuver force air defense capabilities and the air threats targeted against them.

In recognition of the seriousness of the problem, the Secretary of Defense directed a thorough combined arms audit of forward area air defense threats and capabilities. This priority study resulted in the his 1986 approval of the FAADS Program. Far more than a substitute for the SGT York, FAADS represented long overdue recognition by the Defense community that air defense of divisional forces was, and remains, a serious deficiency warranting priority resourcing. From the SGT York test, the Defense community learned that "one weapon alone, or even multiple weapons acting independently, cannot defeat the air threat." FAADS Is consequently based on a "system of systems" which Integrates five complementary components: a Line-of-Sight Forward (LOS-F) (Heavy) system; a Line-of-Sight Rear (LOS-R) system; a Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) system; an ADA C3 System; and a Combined Arms Initiative (CAI) element by which non-ADA battlefield systems gain enhanced anti-air capabilities.
(References left out for clarity)
Thanks Grey Havoc, very interesting and confronting. Confronting because even though 'In recognition of the seriousness of the problem and priority' identified by the Secretary of Defense; the basic and fundimental need and requirement has still been ignored and played down by the U.S. till this day!!!

Regards
Pioneer
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
626
Reaction score
691
I find it kind of unbelievable that a projectile like this have not been revived and pushed with a big budget, outside of Russia.

A few things:
1. Modern runway independent air threats can not be effectively neutralized by traditional air superiority or long range area air defense. Some kind of short ranged land based system is almost required for safe maneuver.
2. Wheeled and unarmored systems lack mobility and survivability to match up with "heavy formations." With only wheeled systems the entire formation can be locked onto roads and those very expensive systems can be totaled against light artillery fire or micro-munitions, certain to be attempted by any battle-networked equipped opponent.
3. Historical systems before MAV/PGM revolution is likely inefficient and ineffective and new designs leveraging modern AESA radars, DEW, guided cannon munitions does offer a path to superior performance.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
791
Reaction score
268
I agree that the West has been very short sighted regarding ground based air defences, in my opinion it is based on an arrogant presumption that we will always operate with air superiority, a prime example of hope foitr the best, ignore the worst.

It always amazes me that the US is only using Stinger as its point air defence, despite the numerous failed attempts; Mauler, Roland and ADATS and the only system to have entered service Chaparral has been withdrawn.

I know the we -the UK - have improved our ground based performance with the introduction of CAMM increasing range from 6 to 15 miles, but I have a gut feeling that the CAMM system is more cumbersome than Rapier. Also I have not read anywhere if the RAF regiment is adopting CAMM to defend airfields, if they are ,I would suggest using CAMM ER which means they could undertake a degree of area defence as well as defending airfields. However, I actually think that the airfield should be protected by the land based ASTER 30's which would provide a more comprehensive national air defence.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
1,169
Bradley ADATS testing:

28 September - 01 October 1987 QUH-1 Full Scale Rotary Wing Target testing Line of Sight Forward Heavy (LOS-FH), maneuvers, and flare deployment

 
Last edited:

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
304
Reaction score
254
I agree that the West has been very short sighted regarding ground based air defences, in my opinion it is based on an arrogant presumption that we will always operate with air superiority, a prime example of hope foitr the best, ignore the worst.

It always amazes me that the US is only using Stinger as its point air defence, despite the numerous failed attempts; Mauler, Roland and ADATS and the only system to have entered service Chaparral has been withdrawn.

I know the we -the UK - have improved our ground based performance with the introduction of CAMM increasing range from 6 to 15 miles, but I have a gut feeling that the CAMM system is more cumbersome than Rapier. Also I have not read anywhere if the RAF regiment is adopting CAMM to defend airfields, if they are ,I would suggest using CAMM ER which means they could undertake a degree of area defence as well as defending airfields. However, I actually think that the airfield should be protected by the land based ASTER 30's which would provide a more comprehensive national air defence.

Yet the United States is fielding a massive investment in short range air defense with an emphasis on drone destruction and PGM detection/elimination in its new Penetration Divisions and their Protection Brigade.

1642135623782.png

Why is this? Because it thinks it will always operate with air superiority?

No, it's the opposite. It's the expectation that they're going to be bombed by modern weapons.

The reason old weapons got killed consistently is because the air threat has consistently changed over the past 70 years during project development and development of threat aviation outstripped development of air defense systems. DIVAD was killed because it was garbage. Mauler the same. ADATS was killed because it was rather ineffective. Roland was killed due to concerns about SEAD and pilot warning (the ADA Branch has always had something of a concern about enemy pilots being alerted to targeting radars I suppose, hence its infatuation with TVM and passive infrared guidance) and because it simply came at a time when Vietnam meant things died, yet the U.S. Army still bought a battalion's worth of them.

There's a pretty clear and sharp divide in the air threat from 1990 (rather non-existent) to 2010 (cheap drones and commercial UAS with RPGs taped to them) which required substantial investments and changes to weapons that were difficult to anticipate prior.

Something like Stinger RMP II would be useless against a DJI Phantom or whatever because it was optimized for engagement of classical air threats like attack helicopters, which are slowly going extinct in the air combat arena, and fast jets which never manifest and are adequately dealt with by Patriot anyway (and typically operate above and beyond the envelopes of mobile AAA systems) whereas drones are effectively VLO targets that require new radars and new fusing to even hope to engage at conventionally lethal distances, hence the upgrades to Stinger in the early 2010's that improved its ability to engage electrically powered VLO vehicles with near-zero infrared signatures.

Not sure why people think there necessarily needs to be something between Stinger and Patriot, though, except that the gap exists. No one has won a war because of Roland, and likewise no one lost a war because they lacked it. Even without something like Rapier in Falklands the UK would have still won, and it's not like the air defense systems in that war deterred A-4Qs from hitting the beaches to any significant degree.

There has been no materialized threat that requires a longer-ranged weapon to engage things like tactical aircraft or long-range ATGW helicopters, yet cannot be engaged by Stinger (a relatively long range weapon itself at four kilometers) or Patriot. Most actual, not imaginary, threats have been from VLO close attack systems like suicide drones and spotter drones warning VBIEDs of incoming convoys to ambush. Which are beyond the scope for something like Gepard or Roland to attack, at least if Pantsir is any evidence to that. Something like ADATS would be entirely useless for the United States, whereas something like Stinger, or an even smaller missile, would be extremely important.

Perhaps there is a place for weapons like Iron Dome in providing limited zone air defense against Excalibur-style autonomous PGMs attempting to tank plink from 70 kilometers with orbital targeting, but so far I think only the United States has demonstrated this ability. Tor is rather effective at killing autonomous suicide UAS (such as HARM or loitering munitions) in Syria but I don't think it has had to tangle with something more substantial Small Diameter Bomb or JASSM yet, nor has it engaged artillery rounds like Iron Dome does. It's also more expensive so it isn't very refined, but it is a pretty old weapon.

So you have a dichotomy for hitting PGMs, small targeting or suicide UAS which act as loitering aerial VLO mines, and high flying attack ships like J-20 or F-35 that are operating well above the ordinary altitudes for man portable or lightweight battlefield systems and require significant radars to detect anyway.

None of these would be addressed by legacy-type air defense systems like Roland to any serious degree. It isn't clear what purpose Crotale/Roland has these days, or similar systems like Rapier or Pantsir, if anything at all. They perform very poorly against realistic battlefield air threats like attack drones or laser guided bombs, and they rarely see their natural prey which tends to be low altitude gunships like A-10 or AH-64 I'd imagine, so they don't really have a purpose.

Air defense is evolving towards a man portable system (possibly a very fat, long-range missile like RBS 70 with a IR guidance), a short to medium (5-20 kilometers) range anti-PGM system for attacking incoming guided munitions like GMLRS or Excalibur-type rounds, and a long-range counter-TBM/theater air defense system like PAC-3 for swatting long-range movers. Anything else is beyond the reach of battlefield air defense and dealt with by OCA tasked fighter-bombers like F-22 or F-35.

Whether CAMM-ER can replicate the job of something like Iron Dome, which has proven very effective against all manner of realistic air threats, or whether it's a system that is only good against legacy threats (attack planes, helicopters) or whatever, is an open question. Air defense systems are not a significant deterrent to attack aircraft historically, and I don't think this will change, but air defense systems can attack munitions themselves after they've been deployed. Which seems to where they're going because it probably has a better success rate, because bombs don't jink, because hit to kill is immensely viable, and because missiles with complicated ARH and advanced warheads and motors are immensely more expensive than a rocket body with just the autopilot and fins.

It's a very real concern that legacy-style weapons like ESSM/CAMM-ER and their antecedents could run out of ammunition before the enemy runs out of bombs. This already happened with Iron Dome, and a Tamir interceptor, with a range of about 10 kilometers, is an order of magnitude cheaper than a ESSM. I can't imagine CAMM-ER is any cheaper than a million a piece.

I suspect the long-term trajectory will be that short-range missiles will be increasingly simplified as guidance capabilities improve. The cost will be shifted from the rocket itself (no warhead, no onboard sensors, possibly a limited automatic pilot) to the radar/tracking system, since you'll need tons of missiles to stave off stuff like a PLAAF StormBreakeri swarm or Turkish loitering munition cloud of little solar powered anti-tank grenades. If that can't be done, well that's why people are investing in extremely powerful microwave weapons (which are little different from a radar in general), so that they can simply lock up a target and fry its computer with the same sensor/weapon system.

Conversely, long-range air defense systems will move the opposite and possibly end up being guided by AMTI space based radars with advanced automatic pilots that can handle momentary losses of communication with the guidance system (I think the largest issue with missed warshots is that missiles tend to lose a target, lose a guidance beam, or both, and revert to some default straight-runner guidance or a ballistic trajectory since old fashioned computers couldn't store enough memory) so that they can attack VLO targets at longish-range with their transient flashes of reflection. Varied methods of guidance (ranging from multiple bands of guidance radar and infrared systems, or more esoteric methods like laser guidance) would be used to overcome the multiple forms of stealth foci of future aircraft.

Short range missiles necessarily will need to be cheap because each PGM is a dead tank and a dead tank is a tremendous expense. Long range missiles will necessarily be expensive because their advanced sensors will not be allowed to be anything less due to target natures.

There isn't really a middle ground between the two dichotomies. Weapons development tends to select disruptively, in genuine high-low senses, and a system that is both mediocre in performance and still a bit too expensive to be plentiful is both manners useless. Not that CAMM-ER is worthless, as I'd imagine it's somewhere near the optimal for current decade, but in the future it will need to become cheaper.

Britain will likely replace it with a shorter range, smaller, cheaper HTK anti-PGM weapon in the vein of Iron Dome in the latter XXI.

Much like how FCS predicted the future in AFV development, I think IFCS is predicting the future of air defense, but whether it's too ambitious (America has a terrible tendency of making overly ambitious combat systems and finding out that current year's technology can't cash the checks they're writing) or not is an open question.
 

Similar threads

Top