Perhaps something a bit(?) more realistic is the Giraffe BV206's being retired and replaced with a couple of truck mounted Giraffe AMB's.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Defending the Irish airspace
Collapse
X
-
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostNo hope of the DF retiring something that is barely in service 10 years. However what is the possibility of SAAB getting to update the existing hardware? Better still is the 4A a more useful update? Why not go the whole hog and have something other than MANPAD based SAMs?
I can't say regarding potential upgrades. I don't know much about the radar on the BV's - other from Norwegian sources I think the range is about 55km and it's using a parabolic dish as opposed to the modern offerings from Saab which utilise PESA or AESA. I haven't had a gawk inside but I wouldn't be surprised to see green on black CRTs.
The AMB offers a potential upgrade path to the likes of CAMM - *but* - the price jump from MANPADs to something like NASAMs or CAMM is so huge, I can't ever see it happening.
The 4A is longer ranged, AESA based and more capable than the AMB, but presumably that comes at a hell of a cost.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
A very achievable option would be something like the SAAB MSHORAD.
It uses vehicle mounted Giraffe 1X radar (75km range), coupled with vehicle mounted RBS70NG RWS. Like before targets are cued visually, however target tracking is automatic and that is a huge step up on the current system.
https://saab.com/land/ground-based-a...stems/mshorad/
Regarding radar coverage, the intelligent locating of two military radar sites would allow an acceptably high coverage if civilian radar was used to plug the gaps. It is important to note that civilian radar should never be viewed as a primary sensor as it lacks the anti-jamming capabilities of military radar.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by pym View PostTo begin with - given all of the many more challenges faced by the DF, any discussion about AD very quickly descends into the completely ****ing absurd.
Long range air search radars generally have a slow scan rate and if you want to lock a target up, you are going to require medium/short range systems with faster scan rates to actually engage a target with a missile system. So if you want a full blown Air Defence network, the medium/short range systems follow on by default.
Your comments about long range search radars only giving a "high altitude picture" is incorrect. I'm not going to say the below images are particularly accurate, but they give a decent idea of what primary radars located on three peaks on the west coast could potentially see, firstly at altitudes from 3,000ft to 5,000ft and then from 10,000ft to 30,000ft. It's obvious that something on the East coast would aid the picture, but - we're already in a mad hypothetical realm.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by pym View PostHow long were they in service with the Norwegians before that though - early 90's? The Flycatchers had a very short life in the DF.
I can't say regarding potential upgrades. I don't know much about the radar on the BV's - other from Norwegian sources I think the range is about 55km and it's using a parabolic dish as opposed to the modern offerings from Saab which utilise PESA or AESA. I haven't had a gawk inside but I wouldn't be surprised to see green on black CRTs.
The AMB offers a potential upgrade path to the likes of CAMM - *but* - the price jump from MANPADs to something like NASAMs or CAMM is so huge, I can't ever see it happening.
The 4A is longer ranged, AESA based and more capable than the AMB, but presumably that comes at a hell of a cost.
The giraffe isn't the most modern of systems, although it would be adequate for air defence of static targets like conferences and the like, which is what the pols care about. An interesting option would be acquiring Raytheon sentinel radars to replace the giraffe and using them with the rbs70; Latvia got four for about 20 million a few years ago. However I'd have thought that they'd run giraffe into the ground before buying anything new.
Actually rbs70 bolide is effective from the real threat overseas which is drones and artillery strikes
A mobile radar system like giraffe x would also add capabilities, a competitor would be the rps42 from Israel, given that drop shorts like to get its smarts from that part of the worldLast edited by paul g; 16 December 2018, 21:58.
Comment
-
To be fair while the flycatcher itself was better than nothing, the bell wire connecting it to the guns was something out of the great war and was a huge weakness.
They were being given away and we took them all, as they were slightly better than the L60s they replaced, but of the same generation. The most pointless exercise of all was the fact they replaced the powered L60, which was highly modernised on the P20s with the same L70 as the ground version, but without the optics the L60s had. All 10 years before all the type were withdrawn from service.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by paul g View PostThe flycatchers were a waste of money as were the el70.
The giraffe isn't the most modern of systems, although it would be adequate for air defence of static targets like conferences and the like, which is what the pols care about. An interesting option would be acquiring Raytheon sentinel radars to replace the giraffe and using them with the rbs70; Latvia got four for about 20 million a few years ago. However I'd have thought that they'd run giraffe into the ground before buying anything new.
Actually rbs70 bolide is effective from the real threat overseas which is drones and artillery strikes
A mobile radar system like giraffe x would also add capabilities, a competitor would be the rps42 from Israel, given that drop shorts like to get its smarts from that part of the world
I know very little about the capabilities of Giraffe currently in service, I'd just be mindful of them probably being 20+ years old and would wonder about their serviceability levels - but I can't ever see them being replaced on a 1 for 1 basis either, the DF appeared to get a very good deal. Something like the 1X looks ideal for a future replacement.
I think there's still something to be said for a longer ranged system, even in the context of static targets, but in my head I'm still thinking it would be truck mounted rather than static remote site(s):- given the difficulty the AC has with providing 24/7 ATC for one airfield, I'd question the ability of the DF to keep personnel in a 24/7/365 radar monitoring role.
The recent civilian radar blackouts would be another argument for having a parallel, military controlled radar network, but it's way down the list.Last edited by pym; 16 December 2018, 22:35.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
If we are looking at an improvement in a strategic level upgrade in terms of air surveillance radar one of the most important things is that it fits into existing IAA infrastructure.
That means it needs to feed into Ballycasey where it will be monitored. It also needs to feed into the IAA’s & Eurocontrol’s ARTAS system.
Primarily that is what it is for, ATC therefore it should be owned, operated and maintained by the IAA. That is not to say that it can’t be a military spec radar as ECM, low observatory aircraft and drones are also hazards to navigation.
All than needs to feed into the AC systems.
Comment
-
In absolutely no way should military radar feed into the IAA operated system. For multiple reasons. Such technology is a national security concern to multiple nations. The information it generates is potentially senaitive. It must remain under military control at all times. I doubt you would even be granted permission to purchase under such conditions.
By all means have a phone link where a civilian ATCO can contact his military counterpart and ask if they are seeing something but retain control of information and technology at all times.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jetjock View PostIn absolutely no way should military radar feed into the IAA operated system. For multiple reasons. Such technology is a national security concern to multiple nations. The information it generates is potentially senaitive. It must remain under military control at all times. I doubt you would even be granted permission to purchase under such conditions.
By all means have a phone link where a civilian ATCO can contact his military counterpart and ask if they are seeing something but retain control of information and technology at all times.
As I said a long range primary radar will mainly be used for ATC
A civvy spec radar would also be much cheaper and wouldn’t come out of the DF budget ... but AC would still have access
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostNATS in the U.K. have a joint ops room with the RAF
As I said a long range primary radar will mainly be used for ATC
A civvy spec radar would also be much cheaper and wouldn’t come out of the DF budget ... but AC would still have access
On a smaller scale there has been a military controller station at Dublin ATC centre for many years for similar reasons.
Long range primary radar has little usefulness to civilian ATC in 2018. It serves as a back up. The IAA is sufficiently funded to increase their capabilities if it deems it necessary. They would consider themselves over specced in all areas, including the necessary primary radar coverage for effective ATC.
A civvy spec radar would be cheaper true, but it has no built in robustness to even the most basic of jamming. Something easily within the capability of the next Bear to fly down the West coast.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jetjock View PostLong range primary radar has little usefulness to civilian ATC in 2018. It serves as a back up. The IAA is sufficiently funded to increase their capabilities if it deems it necessary. They would consider themselves over specced in all areas, including the necessary primary radar coverage for effective ATC.
the next Bear to fly down the West coast.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostWhich is fine until ...
and no, you'd be very unlikely to get an responses to a request for bids that started off with 'we're looking for three remote radar heads linked to a central air space control facility - the radars should ba capable of detecting a Gulfstream 4 sized aircraft with its transponder switched off at 300 miles at 30,000ft and 200 miles at 5,000ft, and be resistant to jamming. oh yes, and it'll be manned by civvies who will work for an organisation completely outside the DoD's control...'
capital costs for 3 RRH's, the feed, and the control centre would be unlikely to top €100m. the manning costs would be unfortunate, but managable.
Comment
Comment