@@tomo1168 what are talking about!! I'm saying about the Swiss have double standards they won't give Ukraine 🇺🇦 Raiper system but they will look after Russian dirty money. Do some research into the Swiss banking system over the years. Putins mistress lives in Switzerland with his children. That tells you the country has double standards.
Greetings from Austria - the land down under. You're correct but with all the meatballs out there, it can be difficult to correctly remember what country one is talking about. I mean, just the other day, I confused Sudan with Japan. Haha, silly me. Add missile systems to the mix and it can get really confusing because lots of countries also have those. Okay, well, have a nice day now, and try not to run into any further nation naming obstacles. The more times we hear them, the harder it is to say the right name! Hooroo from Algeria 🫡
Having worked on Rapier for 12 out of 15 yrs in the RAF Regiment, I can tell you its an impressive bit of kit. Whether its B1m or FSC I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one, as for it being effected by the weather, the 181 blind fire radar sorted that issue out, incidentally the radar tracker use by the sea wolf system was adapted from the 181.The missile is in fact a hittile and extremely fast with a flight time of 15.25 secs to cover 6.8km .
I remember that during the original gulf war " desert storm" the rapier was one of the few systems that could pick up the F117 stealth fighter, using its IR command and control system. From this video it would seem that they went down the radar control instead of the IR. Rapier was always a short range weapon, so no surprises that some consider it outdated, similar types of people used to consider that Bloodhound missiles were outdated because high level mass bombing was "now a thing of the past" those same people have never been in any situation, otherwise they would realise that you need to cover every base, intimate, short range, nominal and long range. There is no one system that can currently and other than say Laser, there is unlikely to be anything that will cover all ranges.
I doubt that. IR systems are too short range to pick up and shoot down high flying aircraft like the F-117. They're only good against low flying aircraft.
There currently are laser air defense systems. Before the end of the decade, there will probably be people say short sighted things like "who needs missiles". They'll be wrong, we will still need missiles, at least for another decade anyway. Also, the US Navy's latest EW system can destroy missiles with microwave radiation. A system like that combined with IRST could be exactly what we need for drone defenses.
short range still has its uses. It looks like a good system, but if we take the Falklands War as an example, this system was pitted against an obsolete Argentine airforce comprised mostly of A4 skyhawks and F86 sabres, sprinkle in about 12 super entendards (the only modern planes). I don't think hanging on by the skin of your teeth against Argentine conscripts and obsolete aircraft is a good showing. The loss of six ships to free fall bombs and a couple of exocets (Argentina only had six of those missiles) shows that the British AD had and still has a lot of work to do to catch up to the Russians AD.
@@jop4691 I didn't say short range systems were useless. I said that they were not suitable for shooting down high flying stealth aircraft like the F-117. They're made to engage low flying targets, like attack aircraft, cruise missiles, and helicopters. They're cheap enough to give good coverage through numbers (where long range systems would be obstructed by trees/buildings), but lack the power to punch through the thick atmosphere near the surface and hit aircraft flying at high altitudes. Long range and short range AA systems simply occupy different roles. High flying stealth aircraft can't be hit by short range missiles like this simply because they aren't suited for that sort of role.
The US is still selling the Hawk system, I met with the guy who was selling them nice guy. The hawk system is a very good mobile system for and cheap.. He said it was a lot better than the S400 simply because of how cheap it was. I think the Rapier is a similar system but maybe a little more expensive and up to date.
@@danehampe2972 Well, is Russia going to sell S400s to Ukraine? I guess the Ukrainians will have to take the inferior Hawk, that is stll good enough to keep Kiev from getting aerial bombed. And the Hawk is linked to Patriot batteries.
@@danehampe2972While S-400 isn’t as good as the fanboys like to pretend, and not as good as Patriot or AEGIS, it’s pretty good, especially for Ruzzia. I’d be shocked it it’s not better than a system from the 1960s.
@@amariner5The Hawk batteries will probably be used closer to the front lines. Most of the Patriot systems will be needed to defend cities and air bases against Ruzzian missile attacks. Kyiv is nearly immune to missiles now, and Ukrainian ports like Odesa need the same protection. Hawk isn’t really up to stopping a Kinzhal or Iskander, but it’s just fine for shooting down Su24/25/34s and helicopters, and even cruise missiles. And it’s a lot less of a big deal if you lose one to a drone or something.
They are arseholes they still hold billions of nazi loot in their banks and the deals they done during WW2 why do we bother with them give them to Ukraine so they can stop the missiles the most 2 faced country in Europe
Swiss equipment is worthless in a conflict. They probably wouldn't sell you new ammunition in a conflict when you're attacked. The Swiss are bunch of cowards and can't be trusted.
If they are fighting Russian scrap, why is the Ukraine offensive getting nowhere? Poor Ukrainians dying in their tens of thousands to fight US and UK proxy war against Russia.
The Gepard is actually more effective on the modern battlefield than it would have been in its heyday because it's one of the few systems out there which can knock down the cheap drones and kamikaze drones that are one of the hallmarks of this war without using a missile far more expensive than the target. The fact that it also has successfully engaged cruise missiles is a tribute to just how effective it is. I wouldn't be surprised if something very like a modernized Gepard is brought back by NATO.
In April 1982, the original Rapier was deployed during the Falklands War when T Battery of the 12th Regiment Royal Artillery joined 3 Commando Brigade as part of the Falklands Task Force, landing at San Carlos on 21 May. Their task was to provide air defence cover for a Harrier landing and re-fuelling pad built on the outskirts of Port San Carlos. (T Battery's sister battery, 9 Battery, was not deployed on the islands until after the conflict had ended.) 63 Squadron RAF Regiment, coincidentally the first unit to have been equipped with Rapier, was deployed at San Carlos bay on 1 June, later deploying around Stanley. Early post-war reports were favourable, indicating 14 kills and 6 probables. Later analysis was less rosy, indicating as few as four enemy aircraft were downed. Only one Argentine aircraft, a Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6, can be confirmed as a Rapier kill, when Lt Bernhardt's aircraft was destroyed on 29 May 1982. The pilot was killed. The other three, an A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 on 23 May and two A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 on 24 May and 25 May 1982, were subjected to the full force of the San Carlos Air Defences, with claims going to Sea Wolf, Sea Cat, Blowpipe and small arms, as well as T Battery. The official history of the war states "Within the total, only five Argentine aircraft might have been shot down by Rapier, and, as originally noted by Ethell and Price, only one of these was certain, with two probables and two possibles. Similar discrepancies arose over other weapons systems, notably Blowpipe (one confirmed against nine claimed and two probables) and Sea Cat (zero to one against eight claimed and two probables). This confirmation that MoD had exaggerated, however unwittingly, the capabilities of Rapier was deemed to be political, as it was observed that if this assessment became widely known it 'could have serious adverse effects on sales' prospects for Rapier, which was a staple revenue-earner for BAE.
The same reason people buy new cars...things wear out and also get surpassed by technical innovation. An 8km range on a defensive system is not good enough against modern threats.
better to destroy it than to give it away with not knowing that it will be definitely used by the group your giving it to and that it instead wont find its way onto the black market only to be bought by a terrorist group to be used against civilian aircraft and just because it is intended as a defensive weapon does not mean it cant be used offensively
That's because "destroy" should've had quotation marks. Switzerland is no slacker in regards to dishonest enrichment, using the same prestidigitation they've become known for amongst terrorists and tax evaders.
Which is normal. The engines can never be cold enough for them not to be tracked atclose range. But the B2 will never come close to these systems in real scenarios.
@@superwout Head on to a B-2 it stands no chance. And there are SEVERAL configurations of engine exhaust setups that HAVE NEVER been deployed. They would only be used in actual war. You never know which one has been employed when doing practice runs or dropping smart ordinance in the Eastern Hemisphere. It's done like that because they don't want people to be able to know what and how to track it. This is apparently common knowledge and not classified anymore because I saw a pilot on a podcast who said he can finally say that it has reconfigurable exhaust to "multiple" configurations depending on the threat level and that the bomber took a small hit in range but refused to get any more specific than that. But like the other guy said...it would never come near it because mission planning is 99% of it's effectiveness.
So much wrong with the content of this video. I explained in an earlier comment but it was deleted. The Swiss systems were NOT upgraded. They got the Mk2 missile in 2007 but the Field Standard B (FSB) Launcher and Blindfire units were pretty much mid-1980's spec. There is plenty of documented evidence and statements about why the Swiss did not want to give them to Ukraine. They would have been a liability. Better that the UK donated the Field Standard C (FSC) but sadly there are not enough usuable missiles left in stock to make any difference and they are no longer in manufacture.
@@JimCarner There was a discussion in Parliament about the decision to retire Rapier and replace it with Sky Sabre. From memory it mentioned "Low hundreds" of functional missiles. From a recent discussion with a friend in the Royal Artillery, he thought there were likely less than 2-300 functional missiles in UK stocks. As a large number of the missiles he had seen were past their dates or had serious moisture contamination in their containers. As for the Swiss numbers, I have no clue as the Swiss Rapier battery Commander talking about their kit did not mention their stock levels. But given the likely manufacture date their missiles would also be past their "best before dates" too. And refurbing the Missiles is not cheap or easy anymore as most of the kit and jigs to do it were scrapped a long time ago.
@@JimCarner Not quite as easy as that. Most of the british systems were scrapped before the invasion anyway. Re-starting manufacture would be a big deal and very expensive. A lot of the components arent even made anymore. You would have to design a new seeker board and sensor. Its really not worth it. VL-MICA would be good. But its expensive and the French don't seem to want to donate them. If you look at some of the recent news you will see a Supacat HMT with ASRAAM and ROTAS sights is now operating in Ukraine. Thats a much cheaper option right now.
I think this is one of the British armies equipment that’s overlooked and good reason it’s the only one that can track stealth aircraft dunno how and the missiles are very fast and accurate
@@fatdaddy1996 the ball was hyper sensitive to movement so it would mess it up when transporting it also wasn’t really good at mountainous terrain but that’s like most spaag’s
With all the missiles having passed their utility date by a lot and the British government refusing to accept them in order to send them to Ukraine, Switzerland couldn’t do anything but scrap them. If the UK had accepted Switzerland’s offer to send them to the UK and then having the UK shipping them to Ukraine, the missiles could have been used in Ukraine. But as a neutral country Switzerland cannot directly send weapons to countries at war.
It is old, and sure, it's long due replacement, but still tracked the hell out of a B2 at the Farnborough Airshow. But the CAMM-ER is here now, so we'll see how that goes.
neutral adjective /ˈnjuː.trəl/ ; /ˈnuː.trəl/ not saying or doing anything that would encourage or help any of the groups involved in an argument or war: What part of that is unclear to you?
Save lives by taking other lives! Strange sense of logic you have there! Clownsky could save many lives by doing the right thing and surrender while he still can!
Weather affects radar and thermal it's unavoidable how much it matters depends on how powerful the system is It's not like they didn't make it waterproof or something
It has an optical tracking system, if you can't see the target, you can't hit it. DN181 radar solved this and gave the system day/night/inclement weather capability.
I love this system and your dates are questionable. Also this system would be a brilliant platform to mount in any recaptured territory as a deter-ant for helicopter or drone reconnaissance. MINI rapier could be used for drones.. This system was built for a reason and that was close range and stealth. This system , like me, is old but not obsolete lol. :) Great video.
The Falklands is in the southern hemisphere, the units had to reconfigured on arriving to account for this, once operational they shot down Argie aircraft with ease.
the missile doesn't track the target, the operator tracks the target and the inputs from him are sent to the missile, plus they were using field standard A which was shite and not equipped with blind fire radar trackers the later B and B1M were much better variants and much reliable
Unfortunately, there were a lot of problems during the conflict. Interferance from navy radar, poor siting, loss of spares etc. Also, the systems suffered during the voyage down to the Falklands and during deployment meaning the engineers had a mountain to climb to get the systems serviceable. This took a number of days during which time there were a lot of air raids in San Carlos. One example is that the systems were mainly sited on top of the hills surrounding the bay, Rapier couldn't shoot down far enough to engage the low flying Argentine jets. Subsequent to the conflict a modification program was put in place to rectifiy the issues, and features such as a minus 10 degree shoot down was embodied. Further down the line FSB1M added a whole new host of features, new computers, command transmitter, radar receiver etc. FSC, whilst having the name "Rapier" is pretty much a new ground up design, went into service mid '90s so is still nearly 30 years old and requires a lot of technical support.
Switzerland is not part of NATO or the EU and has been neutral during its entire existence. It is under no obligation whatsoever to supply anything to Ukraine or anyone else. The thing about being neutral nation is that you have to remain neutral. Picking a side in the Ukraine conflict would undo one of Switzerlands main pillars of existence in one fell swoop.
@@donaldduck9727If the cold war had gotten hot d'you think the Soviets would have just gone around Switzerland and left them alone because of their neutral status?
I just want to correct this video during the first statement. Switzerland's rapier systems were not kept up to date. They were completely outdated, and deemed unsafe to use. This is why they are getting rid of them.
There must be some trick suspension system under that, assumed delicate, radar system and its mount, whether it be trailer or that track layin' rig. Its range would bring it into close proximity to a front which means fast deployment/relocation, which could mean going over rough ground, maybe even as fast as the rig can move, it's war after all, and the terrain could easily beat the livin' hell outa somethin' like delicate radar it would seem.
Former 16 Regt RA, 30Bty. I remember the firing ranges in the Hebrides with Tornadoes doing low fly passes. Quiet something when a missile went rogue and came back towards you 😂
Ok so not even 30 seconds in, I have questions, why did the British Army retire this weapon system, giving it too Switzerland and what did they replace it with? Cmon Dark Tech I know you're better than this. Why would Switzerland retire it and not keep upgrading the sensory and processing system, you've invested 50 years of time and money into a platform that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
upgrades to sensors are pointless if the things it is defending against carry ordinance that out range the old missiles it uses and not you wouldnt be able to just slap longer range missiles on it due to the increased weight and size it would require the entire system to be redesigned from the ground up
Because.......50 year old shit is hard to keep going. You're better off starting from the ground up with what you know works from those 50 years of experience and leaving out what you know DOESN'T work. And some of the systems still are not impervious to a heavy rain. Think about it dude.
It would seem to me Switzerland could save considerable expense by donating them. Return them back to Great Britain and let them donate them to Ukraine.
better yet,sell it back for 1 euro,that way it will be seen not as a donation but a purchase.There are a few countries in the EU that are trying to stay neutral with the war in Ukraine but are being pressured to contribute something to a country thats not even a Nato member.
@@Ducatipete The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be uniquely handy at fixing, maintaining, and modifying weapons systems. I am sure they could keep many of the running.
I would have thought even the UK would have donated theirs to Ukraine as ours was only replaced 2 years ago we cant have got rid of all of them already
Switzerland never had tracked Rapier. It was a UK only system. You also mentioned 'Sweden' when you actually meant 'Switzerland'. Try a little harder on the fact checking and editing.
Switzerland has been playing the neutrality game for a while now...nobody really buys it, but the Swiss seem to like to play so not publicly getting directly involved in the Ukraine conflict is unsurprising.
It's not a game to them. They take it seriously. They were in fact originally forced into neutrality by the larger powers surrounding them. A buffer zone if you will. Is it still the right thing to do? I don't think so, but it's difficult to overcome hundreds of years of policy that is so culturally engrained it's a huge part of their own identity. All the stink they caused by holding back weapons systems from Ukraine has set their entire arms industry on a path towards extinction. It's only a matter of time. That is monumentally stupid, but it shows you how seriously they take it.
I’m disappointed in Sweden scraping instead of donating to Ukraine, it’s a DEFENSIVE system , not offensive so that scraps the reasoning their using to remain neutral, they could deploy them to civilian locations recieving Russian air strikes to civilian populations . The fact they destroyed 4 already is disappointing.
I remember in 2012 when the olympics were happening in london i was walking past blackheath park and saw 4 of these bad boys deployed on a school field behind a primary school XD
@@andreyukhov9403 Remember the two Mi's that hit a pole and wire around last week? Let's just say, things haven't been good in the Russian aviation department.
I'm pretty sure they're not decommissioning them because they are so good I'm pretty sure they're decommissioning them because the advances have leapfrogged that system
I would have thought that the ukrainians could offer guarantee to only be used for civillian protection , away from the front lines , the people of oddessa , kharkiv , liviv would be thankful
It's a rare thing for Switzerland to have a morale compass the banking system certainly does not follow the same rules
you can't takl about neutrality if one country invades another the way russia did.
It’s not banks jobs to be arbiters of morality.
@@tomo1168 what are talking about!! I'm saying about the Swiss have double standards they won't give Ukraine 🇺🇦 Raiper system but they will look after Russian dirty money. Do some research into the Swiss banking system over the years.
Putins mistress lives in Switzerland with his children.
That tells you the country has double standards.
@@ToTheNines87368 I agree 👍
True……
You mistakenly said Sweden towards the end instead of Switzerland
Umm, and you seem to have had an editing failure, showing content twice. Your AI needs to go back to the garage for some upgrades.
@@ridethecurve55 That is bug related to UA-cam and not to any user.
Greetings from Austria - the land down under. You're correct but with all the meatballs out there, it can be difficult to correctly remember what country one is talking about. I mean, just the other day, I confused Sudan with Japan. Haha, silly me.
Add missile systems to the mix and it can get really confusing because lots of countries also have those. Okay, well, have a nice day now, and try not to run into any further nation naming obstacles. The more times we hear them, the harder it is to say the right name!
Hooroo from Algeria 🫡
Are those different countries?
Same shit
This was a great system (former UK AD battery commander here). Known as a 'Hitile' because of it's accuracy. Even now this could be a game changer.
Sounds like the Sea Wolf.
Shame they did so badly in the South Atlantic 1982
@@sichere Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh your not supposed to mention that WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH OCEANIA
@@ganndeber1621 Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.
@@helixvonsmelix Rapier and Sea Wolf have a lot of system overlap. I Was a Rapier Tech in the RAF and called upon to help fix RN systems..!
Having worked on Rapier for 12 out of 15 yrs in the RAF Regiment, I can tell you its an impressive bit of kit. Whether its B1m or FSC I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one, as for it being effected by the weather, the 181 blind fire radar sorted that issue out, incidentally the radar tracker use by the sea wolf system was adapted from the 181.The missile is in fact a hittile and extremely fast with a flight time of 15.25 secs to cover 6.8km .
SO, how many a/c did it down in the Falklands conflict. I mean actually PROVEN not bullshit stats provided by the RA. ...
But can it handle electronic warfare during flight ?
@reptiloidx8942 yes as it doesn't have to rely on radar to engage in optical mode
So it seems to when theres optics theres a close range interception . So such option is a secondary isnt it ?@@wayneholliss
@reptiloidx8942 . You would always go for a radar engagement first but during periods of high ecm ud go for an optical as the system is very accurate
I remember that during the original gulf war " desert storm" the rapier was one of the few systems that could pick up the F117 stealth fighter, using its IR command and control system. From this video it would seem that they went down the radar control instead of the IR. Rapier was always a short range weapon, so no surprises that some consider it outdated, similar types of people used to consider that Bloodhound missiles were outdated because high level mass bombing was "now a thing of the past" those same people have never been in any situation, otherwise they would realise that you need to cover every base, intimate, short range, nominal and long range. There is no one system that can currently and other than say Laser, there is unlikely to be anything that will cover all ranges.
I doubt that. IR systems are too short range to pick up and shoot down high flying aircraft like the F-117. They're only good against low flying aircraft.
There currently are laser air defense systems. Before the end of the decade, there will probably be people say short sighted things like "who needs missiles". They'll be wrong, we will still need missiles, at least for another decade anyway. Also, the US Navy's latest EW system can destroy missiles with microwave radiation. A system like that combined with IRST could be exactly what we need for drone defenses.
short range still has its uses. It looks like a good system, but if we take the Falklands War as an example, this system was pitted against an obsolete Argentine airforce comprised mostly of A4 skyhawks and F86 sabres, sprinkle in about 12 super entendards (the only modern planes). I don't think hanging on by the skin of your teeth against Argentine conscripts and obsolete aircraft is a good showing. The loss of six ships to free fall bombs and a couple of exocets (Argentina only had six of those missiles) shows that the British AD had and still has a lot of work to do to catch up to the Russians AD.
@@jop4691 I didn't say short range systems were useless. I said that they were not suitable for shooting down high flying stealth aircraft like the F-117.
They're made to engage low flying targets, like attack aircraft, cruise missiles, and helicopters. They're cheap enough to give good coverage through numbers (where long range systems would be obstructed by trees/buildings), but lack the power to punch through the thick atmosphere near the surface and hit aircraft flying at high altitudes.
Long range and short range AA systems simply occupy different roles. High flying stealth aircraft can't be hit by short range missiles like this simply because they aren't suited for that sort of role.
I doubt lasers will be good at long ranges. I think they will be best at cheap protection against missiles and drones.
The US is still selling the Hawk system, I met with the guy who was selling them nice guy. The hawk system is a very good mobile system for and cheap.. He said it was a lot better than the S400 simply because of how cheap it was. I think the Rapier is a similar system but maybe a little more expensive and up to date.
Raytheon is looking to restart Hark production.
They need old guys.
Other than cost, the S400 is infinitely better than the Hawk in every way
@@danehampe2972 Well, is Russia going to sell S400s to Ukraine?
I guess the Ukrainians will have to take the inferior Hawk, that is stll good enough to keep Kiev from getting aerial bombed. And the Hawk is linked to Patriot batteries.
@@danehampe2972While S-400 isn’t as good as the fanboys like to pretend, and not as good as Patriot or AEGIS, it’s pretty good, especially for Ruzzia. I’d be shocked it it’s not better than a system from the 1960s.
@@amariner5The Hawk batteries will probably be used closer to the front lines. Most of the Patriot systems will be needed to defend cities and air bases against Ruzzian missile attacks. Kyiv is nearly immune to missiles now, and Ukrainian ports like Odesa need the same protection. Hawk isn’t really up to stopping a Kinzhal or Iskander, but it’s just fine for shooting down Su24/25/34s and helicopters, and even cruise missiles. And it’s a lot less of a big deal if you lose one to a drone or something.
It's time NATO looked for other suppliers and ended it's use of Swiss manufactured ammunition.
Additionally they should stop selling arms to Switzerland. Good luck with neutrality!
They are arseholes they still hold billions of nazi loot in their banks and the deals they done during WW2 why do we bother with them give them to Ukraine so they can stop the missiles the most 2 faced country in Europe
Swiss equipment is worthless in a conflict. They probably wouldn't sell you new ammunition in a conflict when you're attacked. The Swiss are bunch of cowards and can't be trusted.
A few years ago the Gepard was considered old hat also.....When fighting the old Ruskie scrap these weapons are state of the art!....
If they are fighting Russian scrap, why is the Ukraine offensive getting nowhere? Poor Ukrainians dying in their tens of thousands to fight US and UK proxy war against Russia.
Another angloid is mumbling his dogma while Ali is banging his wife in the background
The Gepard is actually more effective on the modern battlefield than it would have been in its heyday because it's one of the few systems out there which can knock down the cheap drones and kamikaze drones that are one of the hallmarks of this war without using a missile far more expensive than the target. The fact that it also has successfully engaged cruise missiles is a tribute to just how effective it is. I wouldn't be surprised if something very like a modernized Gepard is brought back by NATO.
@@ScarabaeusSacer435 Germany abandoned its replacement, get to it Germany!....
@@JimCarnerain't viable (cost, ecology disaster, repel tourism)
Quite certain I saw one of these deployed to the rooftop of an office tower next to the Olympic stadium in London in 2012.
You did see that. I was one of the guys operating it.
In April 1982, the original Rapier was deployed during the Falklands War when T Battery of the 12th Regiment Royal Artillery joined 3 Commando Brigade as part of the Falklands Task Force, landing at San Carlos on 21 May. Their task was to provide air defence cover for a Harrier landing and re-fuelling pad built on the outskirts of Port San Carlos. (T Battery's sister battery, 9 Battery, was not deployed on the islands until after the conflict had ended.) 63 Squadron RAF Regiment, coincidentally the first unit to have been equipped with Rapier, was deployed at San Carlos bay on 1 June, later deploying around Stanley. Early post-war reports were favourable, indicating 14 kills and 6 probables. Later analysis was less rosy, indicating as few as four enemy aircraft were downed. Only one Argentine aircraft, a Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6, can be confirmed as a Rapier kill, when Lt Bernhardt's aircraft was destroyed on 29 May 1982. The pilot was killed. The other three, an A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 on 23 May and two A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 on 24 May and 25 May 1982, were subjected to the full force of the San Carlos Air Defences, with claims going to Sea Wolf, Sea Cat, Blowpipe and small arms, as well as T Battery. The official history of the war states "Within the total, only five Argentine aircraft might have been shot down by Rapier, and, as originally noted by Ethell and Price, only one of these was certain, with two probables and two possibles. Similar discrepancies arose over other weapons systems, notably Blowpipe (one confirmed against nine claimed and two probables) and Sea Cat (zero to one against eight claimed and two probables). This confirmation that MoD had exaggerated, however unwittingly, the capabilities of Rapier was deemed to be political, as it was observed that if this assessment became widely known it 'could have serious adverse effects on sales' prospects for Rapier, which was a staple revenue-earner for BAE.
Why on earth would they destroy a defensive military system?
The same reason people buy new cars...things wear out and also get surpassed by technical innovation. An 8km range on a defensive system is not good enough against modern threats.
Because they are pretentious cucks?
better to destroy it than to give it away with not knowing that it will be definitely used by the group your giving it to and that it instead wont find its way onto the black market only to be bought by a terrorist group to be used against civilian aircraft and just because it is intended as a defensive weapon does not mean it cant be used offensively
That's because "destroy" should've had quotation marks. Switzerland is no slacker in regards to dishonest enrichment, using the same prestidigitation they've become known for amongst terrorists and tax evaders.
I betcha Ukraine's clever engineers could increase their range, as they have done with S-200's@@glamdring0007
ive seen pictures of its IR system picking out the running engines on a B2 bomber.
True. I've witnessed it track the B-2 in person.
Which is normal. The engines can never be cold enough for them not to be tracked atclose range. But the B2 will never come close to these systems in real scenarios.
@@superwout Head on to a B-2 it stands no chance. And there are SEVERAL configurations of engine exhaust setups that HAVE NEVER been deployed. They would only be used in actual war. You never know which one has been employed when doing practice runs or dropping smart ordinance in the Eastern Hemisphere. It's done like that because they don't want people to be able to know what and how to track it. This is apparently common knowledge and not classified anymore because I saw a pilot on a podcast who said he can finally say that it has reconfigurable exhaust to "multiple" configurations depending on the threat level and that the bomber took a small hit in range but refused to get any more specific than that. But like the other guy said...it would never come near it because mission planning is 99% of it's effectiveness.
So what? A b2 wouldn’t come within range of that piece of crap on the battlefield.
Switzerland won't care until somebody kicks down that door.
So much wrong with the content of this video. I explained in an earlier comment but it was deleted.
The Swiss systems were NOT upgraded. They got the Mk2 missile in 2007 but the Field Standard B (FSB) Launcher and Blindfire units were pretty much mid-1980's spec. There is plenty of documented evidence and statements about why the Swiss did not want to give them to Ukraine. They would have been a liability. Better that the UK donated the Field Standard C (FSC) but sadly there are not enough usuable missiles left in stock to make any difference and they are no longer in manufacture.
@@JimCarner There was a discussion in Parliament about the decision to retire Rapier and replace it with Sky Sabre. From memory it mentioned "Low hundreds" of functional missiles.
From a recent discussion with a friend in the Royal Artillery, he thought there were likely less than 2-300 functional missiles in UK stocks. As a large number of the missiles he had seen were past their dates or had serious moisture contamination in their containers. As for the Swiss numbers,
I have no clue as the Swiss Rapier battery Commander talking about their kit did not mention their stock levels. But given the likely manufacture date their missiles would also be past their "best before dates" too. And refurbing the Missiles is not cheap or easy anymore as most of the kit and jigs to do it were scrapped a long time ago.
@@JimCarner Not quite as easy as that. Most of the british systems were scrapped before the invasion anyway.
Re-starting manufacture would be a big deal and very expensive. A lot of the components arent even made anymore. You would have to design a new seeker board and sensor. Its really not worth it.
VL-MICA would be good. But its expensive and the French don't seem to want to donate them.
If you look at some of the recent news you will see a Supacat HMT with ASRAAM and ROTAS sights is now operating in Ukraine. Thats a much cheaper option right now.
@@JimCarner Sorry about that its ROTOS - typo on my part. Its made by Thales and stands for Remotely Operated Thermal Observation Sight.
Switzerland punks out again.
I think this is one of the British armies equipment that’s overlooked and good reason it’s the only one that can track stealth aircraft dunno how and the missiles are very fast and accurate
Err, so why are they being phased out?
@@fatdaddy1996 the ball was hyper sensitive to movement so it would mess it up when transporting it also wasn’t really good at mountainous terrain but that’s like most spaag’s
Aquired in 1980's and maintained/updated them for almost 50 years...? It's only been 43 years since 1980....
Rounding err.
Fart noises.
covered by the word "almost"
@@davedixon2068 But it's also almost 100. It's a perspective thing.
@@johnsmithe4656 No its more of a pedantic thing
The Swiss could just sell them back to the UK avoiding the neutrality conflict.
That's like saying that you're not responsible for school kids overdosing because you only sell to their dealers! Wrong is wrong!
@@MarilynStangl
selling weapons to people who wish to defend themselves is not a crime !
@7:22 you start talking about Sweden. I'd guess you misspoke and meant Switzerland?
Ahh Switzerland the neighbour who doesn’t help when you need it the most.
This shows that they want harm to UKRAINE!!! These could help keep Ukrainians alive!!! Defensive not offensive! 🇺🇦🇺🇸🤠🇺🇸🇺🇦
With all the missiles having passed their utility date by a lot and the British government refusing to accept them in order to send them to Ukraine, Switzerland couldn’t do anything but scrap them. If the UK had accepted Switzerland’s offer to send them to the UK and then having the UK shipping them to Ukraine, the missiles could have been used in Ukraine. But as a neutral country Switzerland cannot directly send weapons to countries at war.
It is old, and sure, it's long due replacement, but still tracked the hell out of a B2 at the Farnborough Airshow. But the CAMM-ER is here now, so we'll see how that goes.
So let me get this straight they won't allow this defensive missile system to be used to save the lives of innocent people.
They’d be deployed to protect troops not innocent baby hospitals.
neutral
adjective
/ˈnjuː.trəl/ ; /ˈnuː.trəl/
not saying or doing anything that would encourage or help any of the groups involved in an argument or war:
What part of that is unclear to you?
Is it Switzerland or Sweden ur talking about? You keep using them interchangeably.
Those on the coast of Odessa would save lives both from aggression and starvation.
lol
Save lives by taking other lives! Strange sense of logic you have there! Clownsky could save many lives by doing the right thing and surrender while he still can!
@@MarilynStangl No these would be used to take down the Russian missiles that are killing innocent civilians. Russia has already lost the war.
Brits: Make a cool weapons system
Also Brits: Weather can fuck about with it
How the fuck did that get past testing in "sunny old England" 😂😂
😀😁😆😅🤣😂
😂
We have a saying: Good enough for government work.
It's universal.
Weather affects radar and thermal it's unavoidable how much it matters depends on how powerful the system is
It's not like they didn't make it waterproof or something
How did we - in Britain - develop a weapons system that was affected by inclement weather 😂. Obviously they fixed that and it looks cool as fck though
It has an optical tracking system, if you can't see the target, you can't hit it. DN181 radar solved this and gave the system day/night/inclement weather capability.
I love this system and your dates are questionable. Also this system would be a brilliant platform to mount in any recaptured territory as a deter-ant for helicopter or drone reconnaissance. MINI rapier could be used for drones.. This system was built for a reason and that was close range and stealth. This system , like me, is old but not obsolete lol. :) Great video.
The missile system that failed to track and kill subsonic argentine jets in the falklands war in a clear unsaturated sky.
@@xxxrossomaticxxx That's why the missiles have a cover on them which ejects before the launch...
The Falklands is very hilly and radar has a tough time at ground level. Rapier should perform better in Ukraine.
The Falklands is in the southern hemisphere, the units had to reconfigured on arriving to account for this, once operational they shot down Argie aircraft with ease.
the missile doesn't track the target, the operator tracks the target and the inputs from him are sent to the missile, plus they were using field standard A which was shite and not equipped with blind fire radar trackers
the later B and B1M were much better variants and much reliable
Unfortunately, there were a lot of problems during the conflict. Interferance from navy radar, poor siting, loss of spares etc. Also, the systems suffered during the voyage down to the Falklands and during deployment meaning the engineers had a mountain to climb to get the systems serviceable. This took a number of days during which time there were a lot of air raids in San Carlos. One example is that the systems were mainly sited on top of the hills surrounding the bay, Rapier couldn't shoot down far enough to engage the low flying Argentine jets. Subsequent to the conflict a modification program was put in place to rectifiy the issues, and features such as a minus 10 degree shoot down was embodied. Further down the line FSB1M added a whole new host of features, new computers, command transmitter, radar receiver etc. FSC, whilst having the name "Rapier" is pretty much a new ground up design, went into service mid '90s so is still nearly 30 years old and requires a lot of technical support.
WoW, Ukraine could save a lot of lives with these missile systems!!! The Swiss will not get Christmas card from me this year :(
And I won't be buying a cuckoo clock.
@@gone547
Cuckoo clocks are from Germany…
Switzerland is not part of NATO or the EU and has been neutral during its entire existence. It is under no obligation whatsoever to supply anything to Ukraine or anyone else. The thing about being neutral nation is that you have to remain neutral. Picking a side in the Ukraine conflict would undo one of Switzerlands main pillars of existence in one fell swoop.
@@donaldduck9727If the cold war had gotten hot d'you think the Soviets would have just gone around Switzerland and left them alone because of their neutral status?
I just want to correct this video during the first statement. Switzerland's rapier systems were not kept up to date. They were completely outdated, and deemed unsafe to use. This is why they are getting rid of them.
Switzerland and Sweden confused at one point near end.
Get your heads out of the snow Switzerland 😡😡😡
Try donating them to UKRAINE!
There must be some trick suspension system under that, assumed delicate, radar system and its mount, whether it be trailer or that track layin' rig. Its range would bring it into close proximity to a front which means fast deployment/relocation, which could mean going over rough ground, maybe even as fast as the rig can move, it's war after all, and the terrain could easily beat the livin' hell outa somethin' like delicate radar it would seem.
Where Rapier goes .... REME are always close behind.
The Swiss could resell it to a Nato Nation or directly to the UK who could send them to Ukraine. It could save many lives.
That's fake neutrality not real neutrality what NATO does with Ukraine is fake what they are doing is real
At about 7minutes 22 seconds you mix up Sweden with Switzerland.
Former 16 Regt RA, 30Bty. I remember the firing ranges in the Hebrides with Tornadoes doing low fly passes. Quiet something when a missile went rogue and came back towards you 😂
The narrator keeps repeating himself.
He drags out the vid like that to make it longer. It's a tactic they all use.
The narrator keeps repeating himself.
The narrator keeps repeating himself.
Make your own videos then.
Pretty sure these videos are made by AI. He has a few channels & puts the same content out across each channel, but sequenced in a different order.
Streamlined - monocoque body and a circular body section?! It must be state of the art!!!
So did you actually answer the question posed by your chosen title?
The Swiss export small arms all the time and a few other weapons systems
Ok so not even 30 seconds in, I have questions, why did the British Army retire this weapon system, giving it too Switzerland and what did they replace it with? Cmon Dark Tech I know you're better than this. Why would Switzerland retire it and not keep upgrading the sensory and processing system, you've invested 50 years of time and money into a platform that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
We Swiss did replace it whit the patriot… but only 2-3 batteries if I remember correctly
upgrades to sensors are pointless if the things it is defending against carry ordinance that out range the old missiles it uses and not you wouldnt be able to just slap longer range missiles on it due to the increased weight and size it would require the entire system to be redesigned from the ground up
Because.......50 year old shit is hard to keep going. You're better off starting from the ground up with what you know works from those 50 years of experience and leaving out what you know DOESN'T work. And some of the systems still are not impervious to a heavy rain. Think about it dude.
@@BigDaddy-yp4mi I did, and I disagree. If it isn't broke don fix it.
Lack of missiles, this system would be a liability in UK.
Or whatever ghost dollar we are chasing there now ffs
It would seem to me Switzerland could save considerable expense by donating them. Return them back to Great Britain and
let them donate them to Ukraine.
better yet,sell it back for 1 euro,that way it will be seen not as a donation but a purchase.There are a few countries in the EU that are trying to stay neutral with the war in Ukraine but are being pressured to contribute something to a country thats not even a Nato member.
They did offer them to the Uk and they didn’t want to buy them…
I have first hand experience of earlier Rapier systems. Giving Ukraine the systems is one thing, but keeping them going is another.
@@Ducatipete The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be uniquely handy at fixing, maintaining, and modifying weapons systems. I am sure they could keep many of the running.
If one day Switzerland needs help (in any sort), we will simply tell them " we are neutral".
They wont need help. Staying neutral is whats kept them out of war
Unfortunately, neutrality is not easy, cheap, or popular. 🤷♂
THIS WAR, IS NOT JUST ABOUT WEAPONS, BUT THE WHOLE GAMUT OF WAR STRATEGIES & INFORMATION.
I would have thought even the UK would have donated theirs to Ukraine as ours was only replaced 2 years ago we cant have got rid of all of them already
Switzerland never had tracked Rapier. It was a UK only system. You also mentioned 'Sweden' when you actually meant 'Switzerland'. Try a little harder on the fact checking and editing.
my dad was an operator in the 70s
If you don't have the best weapons your enemies will
Sweden != Switzerland :)
Sweden be like… “How we get into this”😂
What's the difference
@@mikerodix4800 itzerland or eden 😂😂
Russian money is too good to take any risks ... It was the same issue in WW2 ...
Too much Russian money in Swiss banks.
no subtitles or close captions?
Use ur 👂’s
Somting is better then noting.
Yes the somting defense consortium out of ccchhiina is bett than noting.
how the fuck did you get from the swiss dismantling the units to swedish doing it?
well as cool as it looks it seems every super-duper missile system in the world is easily wiped out buy drones.
@7:21 : "Sweden"...I think you mean "Switzerland".
Hypocrisy is also a Swiss trade.
If the swiss gave this system to ukriane, they wouldnt exactly be neutral anymore.
UK should just buy them back. £1 million per unit. Then see if anyone wants them for free....
Switzerland has been playing the neutrality game for a while now...nobody really buys it, but the Swiss seem to like to play so not publicly getting directly involved in the Ukraine conflict is unsurprising.
They have billions of russian money in the banks, which weighs more than the lives of Ukrainian civillians apparently.
So easy to play at neutrality when the world's most powerful militaries are all around you to defend you
They've been neutral for over 500 years, bro.
It's not a game to them. They take it seriously. They were in fact originally forced into neutrality by the larger powers surrounding them. A buffer zone if you will.
Is it still the right thing to do? I don't think so, but it's difficult to overcome hundreds of years of policy that is so culturally engrained it's a huge part of their own identity. All the stink they caused by holding back weapons systems from Ukraine has set their entire arms industry on a path towards extinction. It's only a matter of time. That is monumentally stupid, but it shows you how seriously they take it.
its old,,,, but it is a hitt-ile
Excellent video
Just give it to them, for defending their people.
It is not an offence weapon.
Not such a great video at all. Read the wiki page and made a video - really lacking any technical info.
I’m disappointed in Sweden scraping instead of donating to Ukraine, it’s a DEFENSIVE system , not offensive so that scraps the reasoning their using to remain neutral, they could deploy them to civilian locations recieving Russian air strikes to civilian populations . The fact they destroyed 4 already is disappointing.
If these can help the Ukrainians .... SEND THEM. I'm sure the Ukrainians would be happy to get them.
Neutral is another word for 'let others do the fighting, make a profit and then enjoy all the freedom and benefits'..
Why are you mentioning Ukraine in this post?
Rapier is classed as a Hitile rather than a missile. Come within its kill zone and it will destroy you.
Hope Ukraine get these..
Slava Ukraine
Extensive overlapping and competent weapons systems keep Switzerland war free for decades now.
Not really...being surrounded by NATO countries did that for them.
@@baldytail Hardly....The Swiss were invasion proof WAAAAAAAY before NATO was a thought in a dream.
Why is the Indian Astra AAM there in this video ~7:00 mins?
why the misleading caption?????
hey, it's the rapier. Singapore had one of these.
Switzerland should be ashamed of there self's 😑, Let's just hope nobody has to come to there aid them in the future!
If they are getting rid of it, I couldn't think of a better way than give it to the Ukrainian forces!
If they want to dismantle them all instead of giving them to Ukraine, perhaps the western countries should exclude the Swiss from future arm sales.
Hey, Switzerland, how about you sell the systems back to the manufacturer so that they can pass them on to Ukraine. I'm sure $1 would cover it.
I mean Switzerland always sides with Yatzees, so no surprise they're doing everything they can to aid Russia.
Clearly it hasn't helped their offensive much... 6 weeks in, still haven't made it past Russia's first line of defense
why dont you go help them if you know so much about how fast they should be moving?? no thought not
The Rapier harmed no aircraft in the South Atlantic 1982
That's false
it did
@7:21 Sweden or Switzerland
This is Rdpier 2000
Fair game for Lancet.
I remember in 2012 when the olympics were happening in london i was walking past blackheath park and saw 4 of these bad boys deployed on a school field behind a primary school XD
This would work good against Russia's Ka-52 helicopter. Which is causing problem with the counter-offensive.
@@andreyukhov9403 Remember the two Mi's that hit a pole and wire around last week? Let's just say, things haven't been good in the Russian aviation department.
I'm pretty sure they're not decommissioning them because they are so good I'm pretty sure they're decommissioning them because the advances have leapfrogged that system
That's why a lot countries are thinking twice about Sweden joining NATO
what is??
I would have thought that the ukrainians could offer guarantee to only be used for civillian protection , away from the front lines , the people of oddessa , kharkiv , liviv would be thankful
Do Switzerland think Russia care about neutrality
Perhaps the Swiss could sell the systems to the UK.
The warhead is 1.4KG, not 0.4KG
This is easy target for the cheap drone.
0:34 Why are you using footage of tube field artillery?
07:56
Switzerland or Sweden - make your mind up!
The swiss should sell these to the U.S.Then we could then give these to Ukrain.
The Swiss have long left it for others to do the fighting.
Why there was a pic of DRDO ASTRA MK1 ?
it out dated to drones the rockets are meant for jets not small targets that are wortles then the rocket