NASAMS 2 vs BAMSE

Depends on your definition of mobile. If that definition includes the ability to fire on the move NASAMS 2 doesn’t look so good 😉 Relocatable might be a better word.

It’s still not mobile, though.

I have served on NASAMS 2, and you are wrong. We had no problems being mobile. 😉

BAMSE and NASAMS(2) are quite different systems, aiming to different requirements.

The first is clearly a point/local defence system, to protect High Value Targets against a pletorae of possible threats, while the second is an area defence system, making good use of a throughly networked bunch of medium range AAMs and Search&Tracking sensors instead of few or single long range ones.

It’s like trying to compare (in the sixties) the Nike Hercules with the Hawk…

There are several figures about range:

Raytheon (http://www.ngaus.org/NGAUS/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000005429/NGAUS%20Briefing%2014%20July%202009%20Rev%201.pdf): over 17 km;
U.S. Army (http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY12/rforms//vol5b.pdf): 18 km (low-altitude aerial threats);
Spanish Army (http://www.ejercito.mde.es/gl/materiales/armamento/NASAMS): 25 km.

In past, both Jane’s and Aviationweek quoted a range of 20-25 km.

Note: Spanish Army uses AIM-120Bs while U.S. Army AIM-120Cs; by the way, when surface launched, there’s no much performance difference between the two.

What’s difficult to know of NASAMS is its ceiling.

On a spanish defence magazine, Armada, a specialized journalist wrote the system has a range of 33 km and a ceiling of 15.000 m, while Spanish Army’s web site says 6.500 m…

The only good thing that came out of Bamse was the R&D money spent on Giraffe AMB. NASAMS is much more capable.

NASAMS has the potential of being completely silent with the integration of following passive systems, and that would transform it to my ideal air defense

Why settle for 240×17 degrees (ADAD) when you can have 360×18 (FIRST)?

Thales SIRIUS – (Naval) Long range infrared search and track system (1200kg)
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Workarea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10193&LangType=2057

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?id=5916

You get a nice passive detection system if you couple an IRST (e.g. ADAD, FIRST) to ECM (eg boxes on SA-9/13 command vehicles)
and sound detection (e.g. Rafael’s Helispot) and construct an integrated pic of the battle space though sensor fusion techniques.

http://www.rafael.co.il/Marketing/186-931-en/Marketing.aspx

The Helispot system detects, identifies and tracks approaching helicopters from a 10 to 12 kilometer range.
While radar, infra-red and other optical detection systems must have line-of-sight to the target,
Helispot can operate without line-of-sight. Like IR and ECM,
it is immune to screening or jamming counter-measures as it is a fully passive system.

More here: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/infrasound.pdf

A new development, unveiled in 2001, is the PHOENIX air defence system installed on the VODNIK 4×4 vehicie
(a Russian counterpart of the US HUMMER).
PHOENIX carries eight IGLA-S missiles but its unique feature is a brand-new thermal imaging seeker with 360? coverage.
This device is said to be able to detect a fighter aircraft from a range of 15km, a
helicopter from 10km and a guided air-to-surface missile from 5km. In addition to the VODNIK,
PHOENIX can be installed on other vehicles of either Russian or foreign origin as well as smali naval vessel.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMSMC/message/4505

Given that ground launching is built into every AMRAAM coming off the line, the same should also apply to NGM. This should setup an interesting distributed SAM network with radar and IIR capabilities.

I see the SA-22 and NASAMS having two different roles, primarily based on the different doctrines of western vs eastern warfare.

SA-22 should be cheaper.

Thanks.
I’m with Distiller on the SA-22, it looks superior in almost every possible way,
only question is cost !
The amraam has the advantage of independent terminal guidance, but that comes at a hefty cost in usage
How do the three systems compare price wise ?

The primary Cs are C1,3,& 7. All current AMRAAM production is either C7 or D.

FY2012 budget has 218/363/341/364/279 (FY 2012-2016 USAF 120Ds), 161/210/216/244/232 (FY 2012-2016 USN 120Ds), and 250 each year (2012-2016 FMS C7s).

How many and what C versions are there around ?

Every AMRAAM since the first C has the software installed to be air-launched or ground-launched. To answer your questions, it depends on what missile is purchased, but the C-7 is being used (IIRC) in the latest systems.

Thank you Loke.

Regarding the second question, do NASAMS 1 & 2 utilize different AMRAAM’s versions?

I’ve two questions about NASAMS and its family:

1) what are the differences among NASAMS, NASAMS 2 and SLAMRAAM?

2) and which AMRAAM is the missile of each system?

P.S.: Happy new year guys 😉

NASAMS was the previous version, NASAMS 2 is the current version.

Some of the differences between N and N2 are listed on Wikipedia (link in first post):

The upgrades consists of:

• New radars, which can be mounted on a variety of vehicles. The radars have their own power supply and can process and distribute the data independently. The vehicles can be connected via radio links, cable, through Multi Rolle Radio, or through TADKOM.
• The radars have a larger frequency spectrum and variable rotation speeds, and also an increased capacity to spot and follow targets.
• Each module can automatically define its position with its northfinder and GPS instruments.
• The control centre modules can be mounted on a large variety of vehicles
• The electro-optical MSP500 sensor is equipped with a laser range finder and a TV-camera, as well as an upgraded IR-camera. These can be used to fire the missiles passively, which has been successfully tested

.

NASAMS is developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg in collaboration with Raytheon; SLAMRAAM is described thus by Raytheon:

SLAMRAAM is the U.S. Army’s domestic variant of the NASAMS system.

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/patriot/nasams/slamraam/index.html

I’ve two questions about NASAMS and its family:

1) what are the differences among NASAMS, NASAMS 2 and SLAMRAAM?

2) and which AMRAAM is the missile of each system?

P.S.: Happy new year guys 😉

Oops, my bad on missing the CLOS info (helps in clouds, but not behind cover)

According to their own website its range is 20km which is still shorter than an AMRAAM.

According to some sources a surface launched AMRAAM has a range of 25 km.

As said before public statements on ranges should be taken with a pinch of salt.

More interesting is comparing medium range RBS-23 BAMSE with SHORAD Pantsir-S1. Both SAMs have missiles with the same range 20 km and 15 km in altitude. Difference is in fact, that 1 Pantsir is almost worth of whole battery of RBS-23. 1 Pantsir have search radar and tracking radar with OE system and could simultaneously engage 4 targets with 4 missiles. On launcher Pantsir have 12 missiles and it also have two 30mm guns. Battery of BAMSE with 4 launchers/missile command centers could also simultaneously engage 4 targets with 4 missiles in the same range. BAMSE battery have 24 missiles on 4 launchers, what is twice the number of missiles on 1 Pantsir.

What range has a SA AMRAAM then ?

Oops, my bad on missing the CLOS info (helps in clouds, but not behind cover)

According to their own website its range is 20km which is still shorter than an AMRAAM.

range out to 20 km

Besides the longer range of the AMRAAM over the RBS23, there is also the issue of networking, Tracking & development.

Networking: Depending on the model of AMRAAM, pre-launch and post-launch updates can come from a variety of sources (even if LOS from the launching vehicle is lost).

Tracking: Being a laser guided missile, the RBS23 gives it’s position away as soon as it tries to acquire the target. The missile itself will lose the track of the target goes behind a hill, into a cloud, etc. OTOH, an AMRAAM can be continue to track a target after it maneuvers as stated above.

How do you know that AMRAAM has a longer range than the BAMSE missile? The Swedes tend to be very secretive about parameters like ranges, and “more than” could mean “much more than”…

The BAMSE system is not using a laser guided missile it seems:

The missile used by the RBS 23 system is based on the RBS 70 [3], but unlike its predecessor (which is laser-guided) it is a radar command-to-line-of-sight (CLOS) missile

These days I think NASAMS 2 with its redundancy and launcher – sensor – command post separation is the better choice. It’s still not mobile, though.

The latest NASAMS 2 is becoming highly mobile:

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kog/news/2011/november/2911nasamsairdefenceupgrade/