Special-K Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 Story Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile SystemJune 21, 2010: Chile is joining Finland, and several other countries, and adopting the Norwegian NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) for their air defense needs. Chile was particularly impressed by the track record of reliability NASAMS has compiled. Norway developed this system in the early 1990s and deployed the first missiles and radars in 1995. NASAMS uses the American AMRAMM radar guided air-to-air missiles, but fired from a six missile container, instead of an aircraft. This ground based AMRAAM weighs 159 kg/350 pounds and has a range of 30 kilometers (it's radar can see out 50-70 kilometers), and can hit targets as high as 21 kilometers (65,000 feet). What makes the AMRAMM so effective as a SAM is the capabilities of its guidance system (which is about two thirds of the $400,000 missiles cost.) Testing also revealed that AMRAAM could be used to shoot down cruise missiles. Chile believes the AMRAAM (also combat proven) used by NASAMS is a better long term choice for air defense, because the United States is constantly updating the missile. Norway pioneered the use of AMRAAM as a surface-to-air missile, and other systems have been developed using AMRAAM. But the Norwegian version is seen as the best of the lot. Spain, Holland, Finland and the United States also use NASAMS. Does anyone have more information on this system? How does it compare to ther Western (or non-western) systems? The last line of the article states that the US also uses it, but I was not aware of this. ISTR that we were looking at an AMRAAM based SAM system that was going to be mounted on HMMWV's, but I wasn't aware that we actually adopted it. Is the article in error, or are we actually using it in some capacity? -K
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 http://www.suomensotilas.fi/nasams_english_uus.php This is article about NASAMS after the winner of the "new mid range SAM system" -competition was published. http://www.suomensotilas.fi/pdf/SAMPT_en-uk_web.pdf This is article about SAMP/T (main contender) published right before the competition ended. There was also another article about NASAMS but that is not aviable in english. Unfortunately that NASAMS vs. SAMP/T comparision table didn't quite survive as there is stuff missing.
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 There's a NASAMs battery defending DC. Wikipedia has coordinates for 3 launchers that are visible in google earth.
shep854 Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 Wikipedia has coordinates for 3 launchers that are visible in google earth.Hopefully, they aren't there anymore.
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 Hopefully, they aren't there anymore. Propably wouldn't do much difference. Those launchers are located within military installations, so taking them out would be difficult let alone doing it at the same time with plane hijacking and then there is that small detail that there may be more of them. All launchers are well within the range of central Washington and pretty much cover eachother.
Chris Werb Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) There's a NASAMs battery defending DC. Yes, I remember Garth mentioning seeing it not long after 911. It did seem a bit odd at the time the US suddenly adopting a SAM system when they already had SAMs in service, but the US does have a huge gap in its ground launched SAMs between Stinger and Patriot. Perhaps it was thought unlikely that a Stinger (which would also be clear weather only) would be able to stop an airliner before it hit a strategic target. Which service actually operates the US NASAMS systems? Late edit: Apparently they're ARNG manned: http://cryptome.org/eyeball/belvoir-mb/belvoir-mb.htm Edited June 26, 2010 by Chris Werb
Jim Martin Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 Propably wouldn't do much difference. Those launchers are located within military installations, so taking them out would be difficult let alone doing it at the same time with plane hijacking and then there is that small detail that there may be more of them. All launchers are well within the range of central Washington and pretty much cover eachother. Plus there may still be Avengers scattered here and there, and even in the '90s there were stories of Stinger teams stationed atop tall buildings in the Capitol area.
Chris Werb Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 In 1994 a man crashed a light aircraft onto the White House lawn, killing himself in the process. You would have thought that would have been a wake-up call.
Michael Dekmetzian Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 It's interesting that the US analogue (SLAMRAAM) took many more years than the Norwegians to develop, which is probably why there's a NASAMS battery around DC. To be fair, the US dev started much later than the Norwegian, though. NASAMS launcher: Interestingly, the SLAMRAAM launcher has the capability to launch AIM-9X: And was extended via a program with kongsberg to launch HAWK as well : Allegedly the SLAMRAAM will replace Stingers in those units that field it, I guess that remains to be seen though.
FITZ Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 SLAMRAAM is effectively the replacement for the long-discarded I-HAWK and the Stinger Avenger vehicle. There really wasn't much to develop and the command post is essentially the Norwegian system repacked on a HUMVEE and the associated launcher didn't take much either. The radar is the same as NASAMS. Big programs like this just seem to move at iceberg pace sometimes. SLAMRAAM is being promoted now with the ability to use AIM-9X as well but so far as I know there is no U.S. interest in this but perhaps it has export potential.
zakk Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 (edited) StoryThis ground based AMRAAM weighs 159 kg/350 pounds and has a range of 30 kilometers (it's radar can see out 50-70 kilometers), and can hit targets as high as 21 kilometers (65,000 feet).The above range is an exaggeration. Some insiders in the Norwegian Air Force have been quoted in giving the range of a ground launched NASAMS-missile (AIM-120B IIRC) to be 18 km, from launcher to interception point. And they should know, they have fired a couple of them over the years... The AIM-120C has longer range, but not almost 70 % longer than the AIM-120B. Linky from Kongsberg:http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/AirDefenceSystems/~/media/KDS/Files/Products/Air%20Defense%20Systems/Brochures/Brosjyre%206%20sider_NASAMS%20generell-skjerm.ashxhttp://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/AirDefenceSystems/~/media/KDS/Files/Products/Air%20Defense%20Systems/Brochures/sl-amraam.ashxhttp://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/AirDefenceSystems/~/media/KDS/Files/Products/Air%20Defense%20Systems/Brochures/sl-amraam_family%20of%20launchers.ashxhttp://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/AirDefenceSystems/~/media/KDS/Files/Products/Air%20Defense%20Systems/Brochures/fdc.ashx Edited June 27, 2010 by zakk
Simon Tan Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 I was wondering why they didn't just mount the AMRAAM seeker onto the much more kinematic and purpose designed ESSM und hey presto SLAMRAAM-ER. It's exactly what raytheon is doing and thus creating new and much more intersting options for both ESSM and SLAMRAAM. In the case of ESSM, a solution that does not need terminal illumination. Ideal for LCS, gators etc. Simon
Archie Pellagio Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 In 1994 a man crashed a light aircraft onto the White House lawn, killing himself in the process. You would have thought that would have been a wake-up call. There were MANPAD's on the roof of the WH then though, they just didn't fire.
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 I was wondering why they didn't just mount the AMRAAM seeker onto the much more kinematic and purpose designed ESSM und hey presto SLAMRAAM-ER. It's exactly what raytheon is doing and thus creating new and much more intersting options for both ESSM and SLAMRAAM. In the case of ESSM, a solution that does not need terminal illumination. Ideal for LCS, gators etc. Simon Kind of interesting that now NASAMS could use potentialy 3 different missiles, 5 if you include Derby and Python 5 from Spyder system (NASAMS and Spyder are very similar systems so i don't think there would be too much difficulties in swapping missiles, if customer wanted to pay for the feature).
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 The above range is an exaggeration. Some insiders in the Norwegian Air Force have been quoted in giving the range of a ground launched NASAMS-missile (AIM-120B IIRC) to be 18 km, from launcher to interception point. And they should know, they have fired a couple of them over the years... The AIM-120C has longer range, but not almost 70 % longer than the AIM-120B. Finnish army gives 25km horizontaly and 9 km verticaly.
zakk Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 (edited) Finnish army gives 25km horizontaly and 9 km verticaly.AIM-120C I presume. Sounds more in range with reality than 30 km and 21 km. However, I think that even 25 km range is a bit of an overstatement. IIRC, the rule of thumb is that you get about 1/3 effective range out of a missile when fired from the ground at zero speed, compared to the same missile being fired at medium altitude at Mach 0.9. I would think that the advertized range of the AIM-120C is when the missile is fired from a fighter at combat speed at medium altitude (not that I have ever seen the producers publicly give the range). If so, 75 km from the AIM-120C in AA mode is a lot more than I would expect... Edited June 27, 2010 by zakk
zakk Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 I was wondering why they didn't just mount the AMRAAM seeker onto the much more kinematic and purpose designed ESSM und hey presto SLAMRAAM-ER. It's exactly what raytheon is doing and thus creating new and much more intersting options for both ESSM and SLAMRAAM. Old news. Sort of:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_August_29/ai_19708624/I have a photo in an old mag lying around somewhere, but it would probably take days to dig it up. Its an Amraam fore end put on top of a larger diameter rocket motor. I never understood why it wasn't taken up by any air forces. It could be launched by a slightly modified standard Amraam-launcher, and thus from combat aircrafts.
Xavier Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 Old news. Sort of:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_August_29/ai_19708624/I have a photo in an old mag lying around somewhere, but it would probably take days to dig it up. Its an Amraam fore end put on top of a larger diameter rocket motor. I never understood why it wasn't taken up by any air forces. It could be launched by a slightly modified standard Amraam-launcher, and thus from combat aircrafts.Try to search for SL-AMRAAM-ER, there are one or two pics of that around the internet and the missile looks suspiciously similar to ESSM, probably because it is either an ESSM with AMRAAM seaker or an AMRAAM with ESSM engine. (which would almost be the same thing anyway)Also, doesn't the AIM-120C-5 have a longer range than previous C versions? (and the D supposedly even longer, though Wiki is the only source I ever saw for that...)
zakk Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 Try to search for SL-AMRAAM-ER, there are one or two pics of that around the internet and the missile looks suspiciously similar to ESSM, probably because it is either an ESSM with AMRAAM seaker or an AMRAAM with ESSM engine. (which would almost be the same thing anyway)No, that is not the missile I was talking about. The missile I was talking about that was mentioned in the article from 1997 in my link, was different. Basically an Amraam with at fatter rocket motor, but using the same fin configuration, seeker head, electronics and warhead as the standard Amraam. Think Amraam after years of bodybuilding: Big body, small head.
Simon Tan Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 AAAM. It's dead. ESSM is perhaps less suited for aircraft carriage due to its higher weight....2x that of AMRAAM. Not impossible though. Simon
Sami Jumppanen Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 AIM-120C I presume. Sounds more in range with reality than 30 km and 21 km. However, I think that even 25 km range is a bit of an overstatement. IIRC, the rule of thumb is that you get about 1/3 effective range out of a missile when fired from the ground at zero speed, compared to the same missile being fired at medium altitude at Mach 0.9. I would think that the advertized range of the AIM-120C is when the missile is fired from a fighter at combat speed at medium altitude (not that I have ever seen the producers publicly give the range). If so, 75 km from the AIM-120C in AA mode is a lot more than I would expect... C-7 to be exact. I just wish that they would get some of those rocket boosters that israelis have for Derby.
Jussi Saari Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 AIM-120C I presume. Sounds more in range with reality than 30 km and 21 km. Range as a term is so vague anyhow that unless what exactly is meant by it is specified, the number is almost meaningless...
zakk Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 AAAM. If you mean AIM-152 AAAM, then definitively not the missile I am talking about. As I said, it was an Amraam with a new, fat rocket motor. Developed by Hughes, Raufoss and Alliant Techsystems.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now