StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

[123]

1

[MoritzPTK]

1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

so MaKaBo is financed? How much for how many? Anything else? JFST Boxer?

Not specified yet.

[SH_MM]

In the past weeks a few relevant decisions have been revealed and news regarding other plans/developments were released.

 

The second batch of Puma infantry fighting vehicles will not be ordered next year. Originally it was planned to place an order in October 2020, but only if the industry proves that the Puma is on the right path of development - by showing that there were no issues with the upgraded VJTF 2023 variant. Apparently there were issues - lack of certain specialized tools, incomplete technical document and technical issues with the MELLS (Spike-LR) launcher of all things - and thus the second batch hasn't been ordered yet. The industry has time to fix all issues until February 2021.

 

The second batch of Puma IFVs (depending on source either 229 or 266 vehicles) will be ordered at the earliest in 2022. In September 2020 the industry was asked to make an offer for upgrading all currently existing Puma IFVs to the Puma S1 configuration. A contract is expect to be signed mid-2021.

Spoiler

Puma in VJTF 2023 configuration.

 

 

There are positive news though. The availability/readiness/reliability of the Puma has been increased successfully after a special support agreement had been signed with the industry in mid-2020. While the Puma had a readiness of last year's readiness was about 30%, it is now about 50% using the Bundeswehr's methodology - in the media some people considers this methodology flawed.

 

Basically the Bundeswehr only counts the readiness of vehicles currently assigned and delivered to its own units. If a vehicle is sent back for maintenance/upgrades/refurbishment, the Bundeswehr excludes it from its statistics. IMO that makes some sense, as show by the readiness rate of the Leopard 2.  It remained constant at above 70%, but due to the fact that not all Leopard 2s are currently in the German Army's units (and instead being upgraded or maintained) this corresponds to 115 combat ready tanks - or 44% of the total inventory of 263 tanks. It is worth nothing that last year 107 out of 244 Leopard 2 tanks were combat ready. The increased total inventory (19 more tanks than last year) probably shows that the upgrade of old Leopard 2A4 tanks to the new 2A7V standard has started (and hence they are all at KMW's & Rheinmetall's facilities).

 

Three days ago the German BAAINBw and its Dutch counterpart have signed an agreement for the modernization/mid-life upgrade of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 self-propelled gun that aims to increase service life to at least 2040. Germany is responsible for selecting the solution and signing the contract.

Spoiler

 

 

There also have been new developments regarding the SHORAD systems that Germany plans to procure as part of the NNbS project. First of all, Diehl presented its new IRIS-T SLS Mark III system, which is based on the Eagle V 6x6 variant and contains two slightly angled up shafts each containing two IRIS-T missiles. Two radar options - either SAAB's Giraffe 1X or Hensoldt's Spexer X-band radar - are offered. The vehicle will be equipped with the Fortion battlefield management system from Airbus (already in service for MANTIS and LeFlaSys) and a FLW 200 remote weapon station for self-defence.

 

 

The high-maneuverability of the IRIS-T missile enables the vehicle to provide 360° protection despite its fixed launchers. It is also claimed to be able to engage targets while on the move. Lock-on before launch with the missiles is only possible in a small sector (i.e. against targets facing the launcher), otherwise the system will utilize lock-on after launch.

Spoiler

Different radar configuration.

At first I thoughgt this was meant for export customers, but according to the association of the German military's reserve (i.e. the Verband der Reservisten der Deutschen Bundeswehr e.V.), the Bundeswehr apparently plans to buy a SHORAD missile system based on a protected vehicle. In the German Army's lingo, protected vehicles include the Enok, Dingo and Eagle, while heavier vehicles are considered armored vehicles.

 

I am not entirely sure what to think about it. In the relevant blogs and forums,a  lot of people complained about Diehl's solution. I don't think it's perfect, but I also don't consider it horrible. I wouldn't have minded something along the lines of the Swedish Robotsystem 98 (IRIS-T SLS on BVS 206) but with integrated radars. I also would have liked some cooperation with Norway, who purchase a similar system based on the Armored Combat Support Vehicle (refurbished M113 upgraded with parts from the FFG G5).

 

Meanwhile Rheinmetall has presented its new Skyranger 30 turret. There are some speculations whether this is also meant for the NNbS project or solely aimed at export; the Skyranger 35 turret on the Boxer has been aimed at and marketed for the NNbS project, but apparently not everyone liked it (at least of the public commenters; I have seen no official statements).

 

Spoiler

 

 

The new Skyranger 30 turret is armed with a 30 x 173 mm autocannon with high rate-of-fire (1,200 rounds per minute), a coaxial machine gun and two MANPADS. It features at least four AESA radar panels, an optical sight for target tracking and an IRST system for target detection/tracking. 200 rounds of main gun ammo are carried within, the maximum gun elevation is 85°. It apparently weighs only 2.5 tonnes (so it has to be unmanned) and is expected to cost between €5 and €7 millions.

 

I don't see anything wrong with this turret, it probably would be the ideal go-to solution for NNbS lower tier anti-drone & air-defence system (with IRIS-T SLS covering the upper tier). But the old Gepard fraction with their nostalgia glasses seem to dislike it, mostly because of the gun caliber. They also has lots of reasons to complain about the previous variant with 35 mm gun though...

 

Speaking of the Gepard: the last (?) 15 ex-German Gepards have been sold by KMW to Qatar.

 

 

 

[SH_MM]

On 12/5/2020 at 6:55 PM, Willy Brandt said:

How much for how many?

 

The German Army apparently plans to be equipped with 43 turreted Boxers (for three Jäger bataillons) as part of its Division 2027 structure.

[Laser Shark]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I also would have liked some cooperation with Norway, who purchase a similar system based on the Armored Combat Support Vehicle (refurbished M113 upgraded with parts from the FFG G5).

 

I’m not sure if it’s really fair to refer to the ACSV G5 (as it’s now being called by both FFG and the Norwegian Armed Forces) as a "refurbished M113", which IMO would put it in the same category as vehicles like the M113A2F1/F2, the M113F3 and the M113F4 (the original ACSV). The lower hull, along with the suspension and engine is that of a PMMC G5, and while the upper superstructure is very M113 like, and it’s possible that it’s been cut out from surplus M113s, it’s obviously been altered quite a bit as well. I know it’s a bit of grey area we're talking here, but to me it feels like we have moved past the territory of refurbished M113s, and that a better description would be “M113/G5 hybrid”.

[123]

1

[SH_MM]

3 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I’m not sure if it’s really fair to refer to the ACSV G5 (as it’s now being called by both FFG and the Norwegian Armed Forces) as a "refurbished M113", which IMO would put it in the same category as vehicles like the M113A2F1/F2, the M113F3 and the M113F4 (the original ACSV). The lower hull, along with the suspension and engine is that of a PMMC G5, and while the upper superstructure is very M113 like, and it’s possible that it’s been cut out from surplus M113s, it’s obviously been altered quite a bit as well. I know it’s a bit of grey area we're talking here, but to me it feels like we have moved past the territory of refurbished M113s, and that a better description would be “M113/G5 hybrid”.

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor. From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

3 Companies * 14 Boxers+1 Boxer for the BAAINBW? and makes sense for the Triangular Divison Structure with a Single Jäger Bataillon per Brigade for Reserve and Rear Area Security

 

Seems like it. Generalleutnant Alfons Mais stated earlier this year that he sees the requirement for 85 turret Boxers... but I guess nobody wants to pay enough for that to happen.

[123]

1

[Laser Shark]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

 

Correct. The ACSV project originally called for the production of M113F4s, which were pretty much just a lengthened version of the previous F3 variant, and thus would have been based on surplus M113 hulls that Norway would ship to the manufacturer. As a part of their bid, FFG however decided to offer a G5 based solution as an alternative to the original ACSV design, and it ended up becoming the preferred option.

 

Quote

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor.

 

Very true. This is very much a grey area like the transition from M109A7 to XM1299. Some feel it's well past time for a new designation, others do not

 

Quote

From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

 

Well, the open hull configuration of the ACSV G5 will have a loading area and integrated container mounts for container-based missions, and it can be outfitted with various modules like close-range air defence, radar applications and electronic warfare. Less has been revealed about the closed hull configuration, but it has been claimed that it will have “(…) a large, efficiently protected and flexibly usable interior, which is ideally suited for transport, command or ambulance missions”, which to me would imply a degree of modularity.

 

[heretic88]

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

There also have been new developments regarding the SHORAD systems that Germany plans to procure as part of the NNbS project. First of all, Diehl presented its new IRIS-T SLS Mark III system, which is based on the Eagle V 6x6 variant and contains two slightly angled up shafts each containing two IRIS-T missiles.

This is horrible. Never seen such poorly designed platform.

First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.

Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief. Yes the missile has high maneuverability. But even if it needs a 90 degree turn, it already wastes lots of propellant, severely limiting its range. Absolutely moronic idea. 

[SH_MM]

I think you are exaggerating. It is not an ideal plattform, but it certainly isn't horrible.

 

On 12/21/2020 at 10:39 PM, heretic88 said:

First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.

 

The Eagle IV and V are based on the UNIMOG chassis. Certainly not perfect offroad vehicles, but performance isn't bad for this class of vehicle. Many (V)SHORAD systems are based on similarly sized wheeled platforms, e.g. look at Avenger, ASRAD, Poprad, 9K33 Osa, etc.

 

On 12/21/2020 at 10:39 PM, heretic88 said:

Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief.

 

It is a trade-off and not idiotic. There are only so many options available within the desired timeframe (ready by 2027). That sort of rules out the development of a new missile - and there frankly are no suitable missiles in NATO for quick adoption, even if the Bundeswehr was open to introduce a new system. Everybody has given up on SHORAD for a long time (or kept old Cold War systems and in service), so the only available solutions are all based on air-launched missiles adopted for ground use - i.e. AIM-9, MICA, IRIS-T, Python & Derby, ASRAMM (as CAMM) and for the US Army's IM-SHORAD also Hellfire. All of these missiles are IMO unsuitable for battlefield air-defence, as they are too large and too heavy to be properly integrated into an armored vehicle (Hellfire isn't too large, but it isn't suited for the anti-air role).

 

So with these missiles one either ends up with just four ready-to-fire missiles (see IRIS-T SLS for Sweden and Norway as well as the new IRIS-T SLS Mark III design) or with a sufficient number of missiles in a large, bulky and barely armored truck (see EMAD/CAMM, MICA-VL, SPYDER, etc). Both solutions are really bad for battlefield air-defence in combat scenarios.

 

The problem with using these missiles in a VLS is that this limits the ability to fire the missile on the move - it is not possible with any of the currently existing systems. That seems to be Diehl's main selling point for the new IRIS-T SLS Mark III variant, though I am not sure if this is actually a requirement. As I said, I'd prefer a cooperation with Norway based on FFG's G5 hull. I am not sure if the Norwegian IRIS-T SLS version will utilize a true VLS or only lift the launchers to a ~45° angle though:

Spoiler

 

Obviously not having a VLS will reduce the range against targets approaching from behind, but it also will increase the range against targets coming from the forward perimeter. As a 360° protection is a requirement by Germany and Diehl markets their solution as 360° capabIe, I believe the negative impact on range won't be too bad.

 

The choice of chassis is logical; not ideal, but logical. It can be slung under both of the candidates of Germany's (now canceled) heavy helicopter program as external load - unlike G5 (too heavy) and BV206 (too bulky/cumbersome), it is in service with the Bundeswehr, it has a mine protection kit and it is cheap. If I had to choose an existing hull in service with the Bundeswehr, I'd prefer go with the Puma or follow Rheinmetall's suggestion and use the Boxer - but that's not feasible within the budget and probably also not desired due to the lower strategic mobility (requires three A400M for two systems). Otherwise G5 and KF41 would be my choice; I'd also think that the Dingo 3 might be a better platform than the Eagle V, but who knows...

 

Spoiler

 

Germany is basically looking for a replacement of the Roland system, but nobody in Germany (and NATO) makes a suitable modern missile. The canceled LFK-NG would have solved this issue, but it was never fully finished and the industry - probably because it was a cooperation between Diehl and MBDA Deuschland, so nobody had full rights - didn't keep working on it as a private venture.

 

The LFK-NG would have featured fire-on-the-move capability from within a VLS.

[David Moyes]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The Eagle IV and V are based on the UNIMOG chassis.

DURO?

[SH_MM]

14 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

DURO?

 

Sorry. Yes, Eagle IV and V are based on DURO, Dingo is based on UNIMOG. Thanks for the correction.

[heretic88]

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

AIM-9, MICA, IRIS-T, Python & Derby, ASRAMM (as CAMM) and for the US Army's IM-SHORAD also Hellfire. All of these missiles are IMO unsuitable for battlefield air-defence, as they are too large and too heavy to be properly integrated into an armored vehicle

No, they arent too large and heavy. AIM-9 was actually used in an air defence system in the past, the MIM-72 Chaperell

 

This new system is still terrible. Only an idiot would design such system. VLS (cold launch) is desirable, but not necessary, since rotating turret was invented since ages  Discarding it is pure laziness. As you can see from this image, even if the target approaching +/- 45 degrees to the launcher, the max range is only around 70% of the theoretically possible. At 90 degrees, it is below 60%. Yes I know its AIM-9X, but the same reduction applies to IRIS-T too. So this means, that the vehicle has only around +/- 90 degrees useable firing arc. Nowhere near the required 360. The IRIS-T missile is excellent, (high resistance to CM, very high maneuverability) but this design totally wastes its potential. As the angle increases, it gets easier to defeat it kinematically. And we didnt even talk about the high parameter limitations... 

The carrier vehicle is not ideal, but more or less acceptable. (I'd vote for the Boxer or maybe the Tpz Fuchs btw) But the fixed launch platform isnt. 

 

[Rico]

Agree that tracked is definitely the best platform to go for such a task.

Puma would start at 10M€ per vehicle.

ACSV seems not a bad idea. Data I found is around 1M€ per vehicle but doubt that FFG is considered.

Lynx could be am option if Puma fails to increase readiness.

 

But I am pretty sure that it will be Boxer since it is known, has right company name, ~3.5M€ pricetag and a performace that will do the job in some way.

[SH_MM]

19 hours ago, heretic88 said:

No, they arent too large and heavy. AIM-9 was actually used in an air defence system in the past, the MIM-72 Chaperell

 

We have a very different understanding regarding when a system can be considered suited for battlefield air-defence. The MIM-72 Chaparall has a number of issues (most of which are related to using barely modified AIM-9 missiles):

• The vehicle carries a total of four missiles in a ready-to-launch configuration. That is very poor for battlefield air-defence. Crotale-NG and MIM-146 ADATS carry eight ready-to-fire missiles, Roland (Bundeswehr versions) has ten ready-to-fire missiles (two in the launchers, eight further in the autoloaders).
• There is no automated system for reloading/restocking the launcher. Manual reloading is cumbersome, as the eight spare missiles carried on the Chaparall are partly disassembled and have to be reassembled on the launcher (this also the reduces weight that the crew has to lift) - i.e. the missile body with rocket motor, the guidance/warhead section and the two fin sections are all separate pieces - which is very time consuming. Reloading has to be done from the exterior, exposing the crew to possible enemy fire. That is very bad and dangerous.
• There is no radar carried on the vehicle.
• The missiles of the Chaparall are not stored inside launch containers. As most of the AIM-9 versions (including most used on the Chaparall) are fitted with an IR seeker, they have to be fitted with protective caps/covers preventing dust/mud/snow to collect on the seeker (this is one problem also found on the Robotsystem 98). So the crew has to dismount and remove the caps before firing.
• The Chaparall has no fire-on-the-move capability. Before firing the whole launcher/turret has to be hydraulically raised (by two feet) into firing position, otherwise it cannot properly elevate
• The missiles are unprotected and exposed to artillery fragments, handgun and rifle ammunition, etc.

The poor performance of the missile and many design issues could be solved thanks to more modern (and more miniaturized) technology such as e.g. adding at least flat radar panels, but the size of such missiles will make both firing-on-the-move and providing a reasonable number of missiles in a ready-to-fire position (either at the launcher or in an autoloading system) extremely cumbersome to implement. Chaparall could only carry spare missiles due to the partial disassembly and only could be "so small" due to the launcher remaining in a lowered position during travel.

 

If you want a good solution with separate detection and tracking radars (as offered by Diehl's solution with the Spexer radars), then one also must ensure that turret/launcher and radars do not interfere with each other. Furthermore a more modern solution would require sufficient armor (specifically underbelly protection against mines), which increases vehicle height, so that stability with a turret/launcher (high center of gravtiy) might become an issue for firing on the move unless a medium/heavy weight chassis is selected.

 

A modern system like Chaparall or a VLS solution like Robotsystem 98 is suited for defending behind the front-lines, but not suited to be as battlefield air-defence system and for convoy protection.

 

19 hours ago, heretic88 said:

As you can see from this image, even if the target approaching +/- 45 degrees to the launcher, the max range is only around 70% of the theoretically possible. At 90 degrees, it is below 60%. Yes I know its AIM-9X, but the same reduction applies to IRIS-T too.

 

Aside of the graphic saying "not to scale", I'd like to point out that software and hardware can make big differences.

The graphic for the AIM-9X also shows only the movement in the horizontal plane, which is less relevant for determining the maximum range of a ground-launched anti-air missile than the vertical movement (i.e. climbing consumes more propellant).

[heretic88]

Well, your points abut the MIM-72 are 100% valid and I agree with them. But these things arent hard to fix.

- the IRIS-T SLS Mark III also has only 4 ready to fire missiles, so you also need a dedicated TZM. Yes, it has a slight, (and irrelevant) advantage over turreted systems where you need to lift the missiles, but its not a big deal. Put a little crane on the TZM, and you are good to go, you can put any missile in containers, weight isnt an issue anymore.

- radar is not advantageous on a short range system, reveals position to the enemy, and also can be jammed, and makes it more expensive. Passive sensors + a link to an air defense network is better. This is where the absence of a rotating turret is again a horrible disadvantage. In case of the system being jammed, what are the operators doing? No optical sight to use, not even the missile seeker. System rendered useless.

- Im quite surprised that the Chaparel couldnt fire on the move, or at least from short stops with launcher in firing position. You sure it wasnt possible? For Strela-1 and Strela-10, firing from short halts were definitely possible, the gunner didnt have to switch to travel position.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Aside of the graphic saying "not to scale", I'd like to point out that software and hardware can make big differences.

Yes Im aware that the graphic is not to scale, but the engagement zone has realistic proportions based on angle. There was another illustration with more detailed description about the AIM-9X in LOAL mode, but sadly I cannot find it anymore. But basically, it said the same as this one.

 

[Boagrius]

What of a system like NASAMS? I get that it's not a true independent battlefield SAM but it seems to cover a similar range envelope (with Sidewinder and AMRAAM). In Australia we seem destined to use it roughly in this niche, albeit hopefully with AMRAAM-ER/ESSM alongside something like the Skyranger 30mm above.

[heretic88]

12 hours ago, Boagrius said:

What of a system like NASAMS? I get that it's not a true independent battlefield SAM but it seems to cover a similar range envelope (with Sidewinder and AMRAAM). In Australia we seem destined to use it roughly in this niche, albeit hopefully with AMRAAM-ER/ESSM alongside something like the Skyranger 30mm above.

We (Hungary) also bought the NASAMS/ESSM recently. It is an excellent homeland air defense system. In my opinion, the best in the world, together with the russian S-350. Skyranger is very nice too, our government is also interested in it, but its not decided yet.

[Boagrius]

I agree although given that NASAMS is not as inherently mobile as an independent system like Tor or Roland, I think it really needs AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II to keep it relevant going forward. It's also not ideally suited to C-RAM or C-UAS, hence why something like the 30mm Skyranger strikes me as an attractive complementary system, especially if the two can be datalinked together to share the same targeting information.

[Laser Shark]

As far as Norway is concerned, it looks like the future anti-aircraft battery/batteries of the Norwegian Army are going to consist of a mix of maneuver SHORAD (ACSV G5 with IRIS-T SL*) and NASAMS III with High Mobility Launchers. The latter has also been acquired by Australia in addition to cannister launchers, but theirs will be based on the Hawkei PMV instead of the HMMWV.

 

 

* I also would not be surprised if the SHORAD vehicle will also be outfitted with a H&K GMG and programmable ammunition similar to the C-UAS solution selected by Germany. In the latest image I've seen of this vehicle, it has both an RWS and a pintle mount FN MAG, and although the image is too small for me to be able to tell what sort of weapon is mounted in the RWS, I suspect it's a GMG since it seems a bit excessive for such a vehicle to carry 2 MGs (even if they are of different caliber).

[SH_MM]

On 12/27/2020 at 4:12 AM, Boagrius said:

What of a system like NASAMS?

 

NASAMS is not suited for battlefield air defence - that's why Norway (where NASAMS was developed) is buying IRIS-T SLS mounted on a M113/G5 hull.

 

While Raytheon and Kongsberg have integrated the AIM-9X missile into NASAMS to act as SHORAD system against highly mobile targets, I don't think any operator has decided to actually purchase the AIM-9X missile for NASAMS or uses NASAMS with the AIM-9X.

 

 

As for the system itself, it is mainly used for static asset defence and covers the low end of medium range air-defence. Its footprint (command post vehicle, radar/generator, launcher) is comparable to larger systems, it is not really a quick-to-deploy system that can escort other combat vehicles on the battlefield.

 

I also don't agree with heretic88's opinion regarding NASAMS being the best system of its kind in the world. It has its strong points (using MOTS/COTS components for cost-reduction), but it also has a number of drawbacks. Each launcher vehicle carries only a very small number of missiles (four on the high-mobility launchers, six on truck-mounted or static launchers), there is no ability to defend against ballistic missiles or fast-flying/maneuverable targets (unless using AIM-9X, which massively limits range) and performance is only average. I don't see any specifical advantage over IRIS-T SLM, Sky Sabre and SPYDER which all were shortlisted for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program - unlike NASAMS.

 

The British Sky Sabre system using CAMM and CAMM-ER missiles provides the same range coverage using more modern missiles (of which eight can be carried on a truck) and has a smaller footprint (one truck with launcher, one truck with command post and radar) - though as medium range system it is also unsuited for battlefield air defence. The Swiss MoD concluded that CAMM is incapable of defeating fast flying & highly maneuveerable targets (i.e. small UAVs and/or ballistic missiles) due to the lack of thrust-vectoring, somthing that also applies to NASAMS.

 

SPYDER is basically an Israeli equivalent to NASAMS, using the Python 5 (~ AIM-9X equivalent missile, but using lots of control surfaces instead of thrurst-vectoring) and Derby (~ AIM-120 equivalent). When using both effectors (which is kind of questionable, as they have different ranges), it was considered the best solution by the Swiss MoD before shortlisting, but Rafael failed to disclose relevant information to the Swiss government when it came to the evaluation, resulting in SPYDER being excluded.

 

IRIS-T SLM with its enlarged missiles can provide air-defence up to 40 kilometers range (comparable to AMRAAM-ER/ESSM and CAMM-ER), but offers thurst-vectoring for ballistic missile defence and defeating highly maneuverable UAVs. It ended up being declared the most promising solution for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program, but bad PR and disputes between Diehl and the Swiss MoD (mostly regarding the ability of the missile to hit targets in bad weather, which Diehl proved in actual tests, but Swiss "experts" on their paper evaluation of the seeker declared it unfit for bad weather firing) lead to the program being restarted with a greater focus on range (with apparently only SAMP/T and Patriot being considered).

 

 

[heretic88]

The question, is it possible for the SPYDER, Sky Sabre or IRIS-T SLM to be spread out like the NASAMS? Also, how many EW radars do these systems have? And what about EO sensors? 

As for ballistic missile defense, neither of these are suitable. Even the S-3/400 and Patriot only have limited capabilities, only a bit more than protecting themselves. If you need a serious BMD system, you need something like the THAAD or the israeli Arrow.

[Boagrius]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

NASAMS is not suited for battlefield air defence - that's why Norway (where NASAMS was developed) is buying IRIS-T SLS mounted on a M113/G5 hull.

 

While Raytheon and Kongsberg have integrated the AIM-9X missile into NASAMS to act as SHORAD system against highly mobile targets, I don't think any operator has decided to actually purchase the AIM-9X missile for NASAMS or uses NASAMS with the AIM-9X.

 

 

As for the system itself, it is mainly used for static asset defence and covers the low end of medium range air-defence. Its footprint (command post vehicle, radar/generator, launcher) is comparable to larger systems, it is not really a quick-to-deploy system that can escort other combat vehicles on the battlefield.

 

I also don't agree with heretic88's opinion regarding NASAMS being the best system of its kind in the world. It has its strong points (using MOTS/COTS components for cost-reduction), but it also has a number of drawbacks. Each launcher vehicle carries only a very small number of missiles (four on the high-mobility launchers, six on truck-mounted or static launchers), there is no ability to defend against ballistic missiles or fast-flying/maneuverable targets (unless using AIM-9X, which massively limits range) and performance is only average. I don't see any specifical advantage over IRIS-T SLM, Sky Sabre and SPYDER which all were shortlisted for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program - unlike NASAMS.

 

The British Sky Sabre system using CAMM and CAMM-ER missiles provides the same range coverage using more modern missiles (of which eight can be carried on a truck) and has a smaller footprint (one truck with launcher, one truck with command post and radar) - though as medium range system it is also unsuited for battlefield air defence. The Swiss MoD concluded that CAMM is incapable of defeating fast flying & highly maneuveerable targets (i.e. small UAVs and/or ballistic missiles) due to the lack of thrust-vectoring, somthing that also applies to NASAMS.

 

SPYDER is basically an Israeli equivalent to NASAMS, using the Python 5 (~ AIM-9X equivalent missile, but using lots of control surfaces instead of thrurst-vectoring) and Derby (~ AIM-120 equivalent). When using both effectors (which is kind of questionable, as they have different ranges), it was considered the best solution by the Swiss MoD before shortlisting, but Rafael failed to disclose relevant information to the Swiss government when it came to the evaluation, resulting in SPYDER being excluded.

 

IRIS-T SLM with its enlarged missiles can provide air-defence up to 40 kilometers range (comparable to AMRAAM-ER/ESSM and CAMM-ER), but offers thurst-vectoring for ballistic missile defence and defeating highly maneuverable UAVs. It ended up being declared the most promising solution for the Swiss BODLUV 2020 program, but bad PR and disputes between Diehl and the Swiss MoD (mostly regarding the ability of the missile to hit targets in bad weather, which Diehl proved in actual tests, but Swiss "experts" on their paper evaluation of the seeker declared it unfit for bad weather firing) lead to the program being restarted with a greater focus on range (with apparently only SAMP/T and Patriot being considered).

 

 

Right, which speaks to why AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II is probably a preferable effector for NASAMS users going forward - it gives the system proper medium range reach with a TVC equipped missile. 

[SH_MM]

17 hours ago, heretic88 said:

The question, is it possible for the SPYDER, Sky Sabre or IRIS-T SLM to be spread out like the NASAMS? Also, how many EW radars do these systems have? And what about EO sensors? 

 

These questions are dependent on the exact user's configuration. Australia for example ordered much more capable radars for NASAMS compared to what is used in Norway.

 

For the German military, IRIS-T SLM is a part of the TLVS program (improved MEADS) that is currently dieing a slow and painful death. As part of TLVS, the IRIS-T SLM would be networked with the long range radars (both the MFCR and SR developed for the MEADS program) while also having its own medium-range radar and being networked with lower tiers of air-defence sensors (i.e. the ongoing NNBs program).

 

Germany has not selected an exact radar solution for the medium range yet, but options include Hensoldt's TRML-4D, Thales' Ground Master 200 Multi Mission Compact Ground, SAAB's Giraffe 4A, Selex' Kronos 3D and the CEAFAR Ground Based Multi-Mission Radar from the Australian company CEA Technologies. Some people expect Thales' offer to be picked up, as the Ground Master 200 has already been purchased by the Netherlands (Germany's main partner for air-defence).

 

All of these systems are more capable than the standard AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel F1 of NASAMS - both in range and resolution, though they tend to be also significantly larger. Australia has selected a scaled-down, short-range version of the CEAFAR for its NASAMS (both mounted on Hawkei and mounted on a trailer). I am fairly sure that Sky Sabre uses a mast-mounted Giraffe X1 radar. The Falcon air-defence system (IRIS-T SLM + Lockheed-Martin controll center + SAAB radar) uses a Giraffe A4 radar as offered by SAAB to Germany. No idea what radar Egypt uses with IRIS-T SLM.

 

As far as I can say, being able to easily integrate further sensors (directly or via networking) and being able to spread multiple launchers over a greater distance (while using only a single TOC) is not a stand-out feature of NASAMS, but a normal feature common to medium/long range air defence systems. E.g. each IRIS-T SLM launcher unit can be positioned up to 20 kilometers away from the TOC. I haven't seen any exact figures for NASAMS, but as Kongsberg's official website speaks of "several kilometers" (rather than something like "dozens of kilometers"), I don't think it offers a significantly larger maximum distance between launchers and TOC than similar solutions.

 

17 hours ago, heretic88 said:

As for ballistic missile defense, neither of these are suitable. Even the S-3/400 and Patriot only have limited capabilities, only a bit more than protecting themselves.

 

Agreed. Ballistic missile defence is only possible within a limited scope. However IRIS-T SLM can defeat some types of older ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (even those with reduced radar signature), against which CAMM(-ER) and AMRAAM are pretty useless.

 

14 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Right, which speaks to why AMRAAM-ER or ESSM Blk II is probably a preferable effector for NASAMS users going forward - it gives the system proper medium range reach with a TVC equipped missile. 

 

AMRAAM-ER is not identical with ESSM Block II though and ESSM Block II is not integrated into NASAMS. AMRAAM-ER uses a modified ESSM Block I missile body with the less capable and cheaper seeker from AMRAAM as well as the warhead and datalink antennas. ESSM Block II is a seeker, warhead and datalink upgrade only, so it directly moves in the opposite direction of AMRAAM-ER. Given the different requirements and natures of the datalink (i.e. ESSM Block II being integrated in AEGIS), an unmodified missile is probably incompatible with NASAMS.

 

As per Raytheon, the AMRAAM-ER uses a reworked rocket motor. I have found no reference that the AMRAAM-ER still has the TVC, though I supposed it wouldn't make much sense to remove it. However one should differentiate between a TVC as used on AMRAAM-ER/ESSM Block 1 & 2 and real thrust-vectoring.

 

While the TVC improves performance, the problem with ESSM Block I and II is the fact, that it the jet vanes are located within the missile's tail section rather than sitting directly at the exhaust. For optimal performance, the jet vanes would sit at the exhaust.

 

I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.