US Army AAA in T2K

[schnickelfritz]

Does anyone have a better suggestion than the "never was" M691 Diana for US AAA units so designated by the folks at GDW?

While I can understand the need to have a AAA gun vehicle that can keep up with the Abrams, using an Abrams hull to make a AAA vehicle seems to be more than a bit of a waste.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the M113 or LAV based PIVAD. Even the M757 Blazer based on the M-2 Bradley seems a better option. You have more mobility, more options with the Stingers, and more range with a 25mm over the 20mm Vulcan. Improve the sensors over the PIVAD and it seems like you've made all of the necessary improvements.

Any thoughts?

Dave

[Raellus]

I agree that the "Diana" seems like a very weak weapons suite for an expensive Abrams chasis. The v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. was a stopgap vehicle so I doubt too many were produced. I'm sure combat testing proved that it lacked sufficient punch for the price. My vote is for something mounted on a Bradley chasis. I like to try to stick to the v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. as much as possible so the M757 Blazer or the M990 (plate G2) would be my picks.

[Panther Al]

I always liked the Diana, true it had its downsides, but I thought it made some sense to base it on the M1, after all, with the replacement of the M1 with the M1A1, its not unreasonable that the old M1's was diverted to produce it with a simple turret replacement, cheaper than buying a whole new vehicle.

However, I agree, its not the best option despite the fondness I have for it. Honestly, I think a gun/missile system based on the Brad would make a lot more sense for various reasons - hence the M6 Linebacker. One of the things that the procurement process got right for once. :)

[Abbott Shaull]

Well for starters the LAV based system didn't have the cross country ability of the M2 or M1 chassis based system, and the M113 chassis based system couldn't keep up.

It was one of the many problems that the US Army faced in the 1980s. It was a time when the military was expanding, but at the same time they were trying to keep the number of items in the inventory down to bare bones as much as possible. It is part of the reason why the Army never adopted the LAV-25 with the M2/M3 and M1 family were just being fielded.

Looking at the Isreali Defense Forces using their Main Battle Tank as a base for their new APC, is one of few countries to go this way. So having Diana based on the M1 chassis isn't too far fetch.

[Panther Al]

Yep, the IDF has done a lot of things that makes a lot sense, and should be watched closely because of that. Before they developed the M109 mods that resulted in the Paladin, they seriously worked on making a SPG based on the Merk Hull as well called Slammer. Couple that with the ARV they developed (I don't know if they produced it number) they had a real good chance to have a whole stable of AFV's with immense parts commonality.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes they did, it one of the things that I think the US military in all branches has limited itself in lot of ways.

[HorseSoldier]

Do you think that it is way off to think that they might be developing this new caliber/round so that should invasions (in either direction) happen any captured ammo or weapons would be of limited value?

The IDF does stuff that makes sense for the IDF in its specific strategic and operational setting. Doesn't mean their stuff is a universal solution or a good idea for anyone else. Sometimes means their ideas aren't even a good idea for the IDF -- their refusal to maintain a balanced force structure with adequate infantry very, very nearly cost them the entire nation in the '73 war.

Heavy Assault Carriers are an idea the IDF has embraced that only make sense in you're a nation with profoundly internal lines, doing low-intensity conflict, with a surplus of tank hulls laying around, and incredibly casualty adverse (in their case due to small population base).

For conventional operations they bring less to the table than Infantry Fighting Vehicles -- and (western) IFVs have proven pretty survivable on the battlefield, making even the HAC's main claim to fame dubious.

For LIC, they don't do anything an MRAP doesn't do, except eat up massively larger amounts of logistics with higher maintenance demands, lower fuel mileage, and such.

So, not a bad idea for the IDF, but not a great idea. Various theories about Abrams based assault carriers have been pushed (engineer vehicle was one that made the pages of Armor back in the 90s) but no one has gone for it.

[Matt Wiser]

Don't remember if it was on the old board or not, but there was a proposal for an air-defense M-1 variant. Radar guidance, twin 35-mm guns, and a dozen ADATS missiles. Variant was provisionally called the M1AGDS, IIRC.

[Mohoender]

I like the idea of MATT but I would go more simply with an M1 mounting a German Gepard turret with twin 35mm. More punch than the 25mm and a turret that is readily available and need no development. An other interesting vehicle would be to have the trial ADATS-Bradley going to production.

[Raellus]

I like the idea of MATT but I would go more simply with an M1 mounting a German Gepard turret with twin 35mm. More punch than the 25mm and a turret that is readily available and need no development.

Sounds badass.

[Matt Wiser]

About the only problem with that is the NIH syndrome, which infects the Pentagon. If GDLS (General Dynamics Land Systems) had their own turret design, with radar and twin 35-mm, and offered that to the Army, in a competition with Gepard, guess which would likely be the winner? Unless Congress dictated an off-the-shelf purchase, in which case Gepard turrets on the M-1 chassis would be the likely solution.

[Legbreaker]

Another problem with the Gepard turret is that it may not be as available as you think. How many have Germany got? How many are they producing? Has any other nation got them?
How many "spares" may there be in wartime?

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, I'm just not so sure it would be feasible due to supply issues.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to the Gepard turret, the numbers in service in the 1980s-1990s were roughly the following: -
West Germany 377
Belgium 55
the Netherlands 95

There are also other off-the-shelf turrets that could have been purchased (like the Gepard turret, these systems were designed to be fitted to tank hulls).
Marconi Marksman link 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system) link 2 (http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1551) link 3 (http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/29014)
OTO-Melara Otomatic link 1 (no pics but has links to images) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomatic) link 2 (http://www.military-today.com/artillery/otomatic.htm)

[Mohoender]

Acording to the Jane's 1984-1985, the Gepard's turret is rated under "international" (NATO). It is also stated that it can be installed on most MBTs including M48 and M60. Nothing was said at the time about the M1 but the tank was just going in production.

Leg, I was not thinking of German produced turret (except may be for the first batch) but of licenced built turrets.

In addition to the turret systems already sited you have the Thompson-CSF Sabre twin 30mm.

[Legbreaker]

Fair enough. The concept is certainly doable, the only real issue is which system would be used and would the purse strings be opened wide enough, early enough for it to be useful (bugs to work out, limited numbers on the battlefield, etc).

Once the war had been raging for a while and a few spare M1 bodies were laying about, I can see field mods springing up. Throw a towed 20mm PIVAD, captured ZU-23-2 or even a 40mm Bofors on where the turret used to be, strap it all down with chewing gum and fencing wire and you've got yourself an effective infantry destroyer. :p

Might even see some armour plating bolted on here and there to try and protect the gun crews a little.

[Abbott Shaull]

Thats the problem back then there wasn't much off the shelf buying. LAV-25 was one of the few exceptions...

[dragoon500ly]

About the only problem with that is the NIH syndrome, which infects the Pentagon. If GDLS (General Dynamics Land Systems) had their own turret design, with radar and twin 35-mm, and offered that to the Army, in a competition with Gepard, guess which would likely be the winner? Unless Congress dictated an off-the-shelf purchase, in which case Gepard turrets on the M-1 chassis would be the likely solution.

And you can rest assured that if the DoD held bidding for a new ADA system, that the US-based manufactuers will go all out to out-bid any foreign builder...

Anybody remember the fun and games that Smith & Wesson pulled when the M-9 contract was let out? For a while there I thought Beretta and S&W would hold gunfights out in the parking lot!

When Beretta won the trails, S&W had no problems with calling in their lobbyists and their in-house congressmen and throwing a monkey wrench into the approval process, they managed to delay the M-9 for almost two years...for a major contract like a new ADA system...you would think that the Cyberpunk game universe had come to life!

[Panther Al]

The IDF does stuff that makes sense for the IDF in its specific strategic and operational setting. Doesn't mean their stuff is a universal solution or a good idea for anyone else. Sometimes means their ideas aren't even a good idea for the IDF -- their refusal to maintain a balanced force structure with adequate infantry very, very nearly cost them the entire nation in 1972


Granted by all means, some of the solutions will be to problems only they will face, but on the whole, they have been ahead of a lot of trends in modern warfare.

Back on point, does anyone know what the US is using for AD now that they benched the linebacker?

[Tegyrius]

Back on point, does anyone know what the US is using for AD now that they benched the linebacker?
It looks like they're down to Stinger teams and Avenger HMMWVs. Gun systems seem to be completely dead... which, if true, bespeaks a high degree of (over?)confidence in our air superiority.

- C.

[Mohoender]

I agree with everything which is said but we are talking of a war situation and that changes a lot of things. Of course, no chance that the element would be built outside US but taking over a foreign design (especially when it is only a part of it) has never been a problem.

I just remind you that without UK and their Merlin engine, the P-51 Mustang would have remained an unremarkable aircraft despite having a fantastic airframe.

Concerning a US army ADA system in T2K, the situation would have been exactly that. The DIVAD had just failed lamentably and they were pressed by time. As a result, I could very well see foreign sytems being adopted with let say "Ford Aerospace" being tasked with building the turrets and "General Dynamics Land System" assembling the vehicle (plus a fiar number of sub-contractors).

Then, it will possibly be operating in teams with Bradley-ADATS. Just an opinion.

[pmulcahy11b]

And you can rest assured that if the DoD held bidding for a new ADA system, that the US-based manufactuers will go all out to out-bid any foreign builder...

And have "unforeseen" cost overruns once manufacture started...

[Raellus]

It looks like they're down to Stinger teams and Avenger HMMWVs. Gun systems seem to be completely dead... which, if true, bespeaks a high degree of (over?)confidence in our air superiority.

Indeed. It seems that the U.S. military has forgotten the lessons that the Brits learned the hard way in the Falklands, '82.

[Tegyrius]

Concerning a US army ADA system in T2K, the situation would have been exactly that. The DIVAD had just failed lamentably and they were pressed by time. As a result, I could very well see foreign sytems being adopted with let say "Ford Aerospace" being tasked with building the turrets and "General Dynamics Land System" assembling the vehicle (plus a fiar number of sub-contractors).

I think GDW's existing material implicitly reflects this pressure. The Second Edition ACVH presents PIVAD, LAV-PIVAD (but somehow missing the actual LAV-AD), Chaparral, Diana, ADATS, Roland II, M990, Duster, and the M21/M22 and XM12 laser systems all as systems in at least limited U.S. service. My inference is that in the years immediately before the Twilight War, the Army was throwing multiple ADA platforms at the proverbial wall in the hope that one or more would stick.

- C.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Indeed. It seems that the U.S. military has forgotten the lessons that the Brits learned the hard way in the Falklands, '82.

Have the Brits remembered? I don't even know what AAA we're fielding these days.

[pmulcahy11b]

Although it's a vehicle that never was, I always liked the M990. It's fast, light, but reasonably armored, and carries a decent ammo load and decent-caliber guns. I put my own writeup of it on my Best SP Antiaircraft Vehicles that Never Were page, and gave it the name of "Chamberlain," after one of my heroes, Joshua Chamberlain of the Civil War.

[Panther Al]

Although it's a vehicle that never was, I always liked the M990. It's fast, light, but reasonably armored, and carries a decent ammo load and decent-caliber guns. I put my own writeup of it on my Best SP Antiaircraft Vehicles that Never Were page, and gave it the name of "Chamberlain," after one of my heroes, Joshua Chamberlain of the Civil War.

I'm totally behind you on that choice, of both fondness and the name for it. While I can't see anyway for it to exist in the real world, I felt that it was in game terms a very good example of how to put together an SPAAG: Base it off of a light vehicle for mobility, cost, and ease of production, and give it solid amounts of firepower, and armour it to the point where light cannon fire, from say a wild weasel, has to get lucky to put it out of action - but no more. As to the name, I spent more than a few years growing up in Maine, have relatives still living there, and the name you picked was pure win. Gotta love the civil war period for one thing: it was the last war where an amateur can leave college, having taught nothing even remotely close to anything military in nature, and still be able to lead troops not only well from a leadership point of view, but actually very successfully in end results in a battlefield environment.

[Raellus]

Although it's a vehicle that never was, I always liked the M990. It's fast, light, but reasonably armored, and carries a decent ammo load and decent-caliber guns. I put my own writeup of it on my Best SP Antiaircraft Vehicles that Never Were page, and gave it the name of "Chamberlain," after one of my heroes, Joshua Chamberlain of the Civil War.

I'm with you on this one too. Your assessment is spot-on. Good call.

[schnickelfritz]

The Linebacker was withdrawn from service. I believe that the current solution is the HMMWV based Avenger.

Some times I believe it would be useful to have the idiots at the Pentagon who make decisions like the total clusterXXXX that has been the post cold war US forward AAA situation listen to Iraqi and German verterans of Gulf War 1 and Normandy who can tell them how paralyzing it is to be under relentless air attack.

If you can find a surviving German vet of the Eurpoean campaign, ask him what it's like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger

-Dave

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm personally mystified by the decision to withdraw the Linebacker. I'd love to hear the thinking at the top on that decision. It seems like the perfect vehicle for its mission, since it's almost entirely a Bradley except for its mission fit and fits in perfectly with a mechanized or armored division.

[pmulcahy11b]

If you can find a surviving German vet of the Eurpoean campaign, ask him what it's like.

-Dave

That may be part of the problem -- except for a little bit during the Korean War, the Western militaries of the world know little of what it's like to be on the receiving end of air power. Perhaps we need to talk to the Israelis, but they haven't seen much on the receiving end of air strikes since the 1973 War, either.

[Panther Al]

I'm personally mystified by the decision to withdraw the Linebacker. I'd love to hear the thinking at the top on that decision. It seems like the perfect vehicle for its mission, since it's almost entirely a Bradley except for its mission fit and fits in perfectly with a mechanized or armored division.

Indeed, they went with us (3d ACR) for the invasion/OIF1 and they made a very effective regimental fire brigade/reserve manpower pool that the regiment was able to flex where-ever and however when needed. True, not much need for the stingers, but the 25mm was still able to shoot stuff up just fine.

The Avenger on the other hand... What good can be said of it other than it exists so the Army can claim they have an AA platform. At 40k a missile, and assuming only 1 miss out of the 8, its a hell of lot more expensive than say, a 40mm cannon would be for the same level of effectiveness. Sure, it can be said that the stinger can reach out farther than a gun, but outside of the open desert, or down into mountain valleys from ridge line firing positions, not going to be much chance for that, for I think most shots will be hip shots at a threat that pops out of (relatively) nowhere. So, give a SPAAG platform a good gun system: 30mm, 40mm, 25Gat, 30Gat (Ohh... GAU8 anyone?) or whatever and tack on a brace of missiles for when you do have those money shots presented to you.

*edit*

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Seems the Pentagon ponies should ask some of the British veterans of the Falklands War.
Ask them how they learnt to operate Argentinian AA guns they'd captured so they could fire back at the aircraft strafing them.

[Tegyrius]

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

Funny you should say that. :) As soon as this thread started up, I was thinking about other hypothetical stopgap AAA systems from the 1996-1998 period and immediately turned to a Phalanx bolted to a Bradley or Abrams chassis.

- C.

[Abbott Shaull]

Indeed, they went with us (3d ACR) for the invasion/OIF1 and they made a very effective regimental fire brigade/reserve manpower pool that the regiment was able to flex where-ever and however when needed. True, not much need for the stingers, but the 25mm was still able to shoot stuff up just fine.

The Avenger on the other hand... What good can be said of it other than it exists so the Army can claim they have an AA platform. At 40k a missile, and assuming only 1 miss out of the 8, its a hell of lot more expensive than say, a 40mm cannon would be for the same level of effectiveness. Sure, it can be said that the stinger can reach out farther than a gun, but outside of the open desert, or down into mountain valleys from ridge line firing positions, not going to be much chance for that, for I think most shots will be hip shots at a threat that pops out of (relatively) nowhere. So, give a SPAAG platform a good gun system: 30mm, 40mm, 25Gat, 30Gat (Ohh... GAU8 anyone?) or whatever and tack on a brace of missiles for when you do have those money shots presented to you.

*edit*

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.
Interesting set up.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that is one of the down falls. I think for most part, US Troops haven't come under constant enemy aircraft since Korea. Yeah, ask the veterans who have been under fire and it doesn't take an genius to figure out after 6 weeks of constant bombing, why so many of the Iraqi Army just gave up in 1991.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think part of the problem is that the USAF assures the Pentagon that it is more effective at getting the job done than putting troops on the ground is. They point to their success in Gulf War 1 & 2 conveniently forgetting that they didn't face a foe on the same level as Korea, Europe or the Pacific in the 1950s & 1940s respectively. They assume that they will always have air superiority.

They overlook the fact that the Russians have fielded the ZSU-23-4 for decades and partially replace/supplemented it with the 9K22 Tunguska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska-M1) and then gone further and supplemented/replaced the Tunguska with the Pantsir S1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1) because they (the Russians) aren't assuming they'll always have air superiority.

The Tunguska is in service with a handful of countries outside Russia (Belarus, the Ukraine, India and Morocco) but the Pantsir is in service with Syria who apparently sold approximately ten units to Iran.

[Legbreaker]

And of course ten units don't make an air defence network...

[Panther Al]

Funny you should say that. :) As soon as this thread started up, I was thinking about other hypothetical stopgap AAA systems from the 1996-1998 period and immediately turned to a Phalanx bolted to a Bradley or Abrams chassis.

- C.

No doubt that the thought would have hit: We are from what I read doing just that with the 20mm Phalanx mounted on a Himmit in Iraq for inbound artillery/mortar/rocket interception. That could use some fact checking, but if thats the case... I could *very* easily see it happening in the TW as ships become laid up due to parts/fuel.

The Goalkeeper is a similar setup using the GAU-8 gatling off of the A10. According to NAH, you are looking at a range of 450, with a ROF of 135 and a pen of 18/12/5. Not too shabby. With Ammo, just over 1800kg. So... I can see it happening. :)

[Tegyrius]

No doubt that the thought would have hit: We are from what I read doing just that with the 20mm Phalanx mounted on a Himmit in Iraq for inbound artillery/mortar/rocket interception. That could use some fact checking, but if thats the case... I could *very* easily see it happening in the TW as ships become laid up due to parts/fuel.

Yup. I believe the system you're thinking of is Centurion C-RAM. It's what got me thinking about a Phalanx Bradley. I wasn't sure of that proposal's plausibility for AAA, though, because one of the ostensible goals behind DIVAD was to produce a gun with longer effective range than the 20mm. On the other hand, it has some story potential as a stopgap solution thrown together in my hometown...

The Goalkeeper is a similar setup using the GAU-8 gatling off of the A10. According to NAH, you are looking at a range of 450, with a ROF of 135 and a pen of 18/12/5. Not too shabby. With Ammo, just over 1800kg. So... I can see it happening. :)

I'm a long-time Warthog fan and, having looked at the GAU-8, I've always considered Goalkeeper mildly terrifying (you want to put a what on a ship?). The suggestion of putting it on an MBT chassis is awe-inspiring in a truly disturbing way, and that'd certainly solve the range problem. :)

- C.

[Panther Al]

And of course ten units don't make an air defence network...

Well, thats the thing:

NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate) came up with the whole, for a lack of a better term, Zone Defense strategy using a broad spectrum of guns and missiles of various capabilities, each of which supported the other with the mission of making the air above the battlespace a no fly zone, even for themselves, as they clearly stated that it was impossible for air defense to do a adequate job of preventing friendly fire. As to how well it works, ask the Israeli's, there is a reason that they don't have very many aircraft that predate 1973. And that was a Arab manned Soviet Air Defense Net (Again, I'll grant that there was more than a few "advisors" present). One guy I know whose job was to simulate russian air defense nets in a opfor role for the airforce likened it to a arial no-mans land mentality from the first world war. He was somewhat known for the nastiness he could achieve with the lowly SA2 - everyone he said always looked out for the newer, better, stuff. Spent all the time countering it: By the time they did so, the telephone poles have snuck through is how he put it - Too stupid and primitive to be vulnerable to current ECM.

We never felt much need for the same: NATO Air Forces was assumed to have total domination of the air, at worst, the soviets might achieve local air neutrality. Because of this, the doctrine was for Point Air Defense, where a handful of vehicles, sent to the most vulnerable point.

[Panther Al]

In the timeline I use, the Twilight War kicks off in 2016, hence TW2020. This thinking and chat has inspired me, so I bring you the first draft of the M73 Eaton SPAAG.


M73 Eaton SPAAG

Developed in 2014 by the US Army, this vehicle was introduced for three main reasons: One, it was determined that a dedicated gun based air defense system was needed; Second, that any system adopted had to use off the shelf equipment as much as possible. The Eaton achieved that by using up surplus M1 hulls released by the drawdown in armored forces, and by using the gun system off of the recently retired Air Force A10 Thunderbolts. With the addition of the already developed Goalkeeper fire control system, and the incorporation of a four-cell slammer launch module, this was accomplished. The finished product served admirably, it was well liked by the crews who felt that not only was the missile system good at its job, the gun itself allowed them to project a no fly bubble in excess of its actual capabilities due to the legend of the GAU-8. When the Twilight War began, these expectations were met in spades, causing the US to start production of new systems, although few were actually built before the TDM. The reputed third reason, though never officially acknowledged by anyone, was that the adaptation and naming of the system after the then currently sitting President (A former Sergeant in the 3d ACR) was in order to shut him up and get his nose out of meddling with the way the Army was doing things – especially after his direct meddling with the make up of the reestablished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACR’s.



Stats:

Same as M1A2 except as following:

Armament 4 AIM120 Slammers, GAU-8 30mm Gatling, M240 ( C ).
Ammo: 4 AIM120, 1178rd 30mm, 800 7.62
Price: 550,000
Veh Wt: 52 Tonnes
Crew 3
MNT 14
Fuel Cons 520
TF 40, TS 20, TR 12.


Flame away! :)

[pmulcahy11b]

Sounds good -- keep the capacious ammunition stowage for the 30mm rounds. However, I thought the AIM-120 was called the Rattler and not the Slammer. Although...SLAMRAAM -- Slammer -- makes sense for the ground-launched version.

[Panther Al]

I've no idea what the ground launched version of the AMRAAM is called, so Slammer it is. :) I decided on 1178 as the fluff says the system was ripped out of retired A10's, so for cost savings they just used the same drum. I personally would have more, but, fluff won out here.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've no idea what the ground launched version of the AMRAAM is called, so Slammer it is. :) I decided on 1178 as the fluff says the system was ripped out of retired A10's, so for cost savings they just used the same drum. I personally would have more, but, fluff won out here.

They're called the SLAMRAAM (Surfaced-Launched AMRAAM), so Slammer for the SAM version sounds good. Can anybody on the boards draw good enough to make a sketch?

Would the Goalkeeper's radar be modified to be able to track land-based surface targets?

[Panther Al]

Dunno. I would say no though. But thats a easy fix, repurpose the existing FC system, and bobs your uncle, since its all software based these days.

As to art, Not I. I wish I could though as I think this vehicle is about to make its appearance in the game I've got sorta going. But will it be in the hands of the good guys or bad guys... muahahaha

*edit*

While you could drop in the Goalkeeper turret, its not as big as I thought it turns out, just tall, I am thinking more along the lines of a fairly boxy, but lower profile turret, more along the lines of Gun on Centre line, the round dish (I think its tracking) radar to the left, the Slammers to the right, and the search radar mounted on the back topside of the turret - perhaps on a mast?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While cruising the web for info on SPAAG systems, I've found some interesting bits & pieces that I'd like to post up here.

A conversation from worldaffairsboard.com that discusses some US SPAAGs (other contenders for the DIVAD project) link here (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ancient-medieval-early-modern-ages/45624-greatest-white-elephants-military-history-5.html)
Scroll down about half the page, I think some people will be happy to see that the rotary cannon, i.e. Gatling Gun was well represented. I tend to disagree with many of the posters there about their definition of a white elephant though.

Phalanx systems on HEMTT platform (although I think we've seen this somewhere before, Antenna I think it was had some artwork of a HEMTT mounting two Phalanx systems. Link here (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Phalanx_Weapon_System_Completes_Live_Fire_Demonstr ation_999.html).

Finally, I think if you want some artwork (mostly top-down stuff) for a gun system, the people at RPGMapShare might be able to help. They do a lot of artwork for gaming and have a modern section here. (http://rpgmapshare.com/v/objects/modern/)
Considering that some of their modern military vehicles are done as hull and turret seperate, you might be able to mix & match for some hybrid vehicles (although I have no idea what scale these guys work at but with 61 pages of 1940s to 2000s vehicles, this site could be a big help for making your own maps for the next RPG session.).

Although I love the work that the guys at gunpoint-3D.com do and would love to see them work their magic on a Gatling armed M1 SPAAG, I think they only do commission work and they'd be a bit beyond my price range. Their example of the M1 AGDS is here. (http://gunpoint-3d.com/model-agds.html)

[dragoon500ly]

Yup. I believe the system you're thinking of is Centurion C-RAM. It's what got me thinking about a Phalanx Bradley. I wasn't sure of that proposal's plausibility for AAA, though, because one of the ostensible goals behind DIVAD was to produce a gun with longer effective range than the 20mm. On the other hand, it has some story potential as a stopgap solution thrown together in my hometown...



I'm a long-time Warthog fan and, having looked at the GAU-8, I've always considered Goalkeeper mildly terrifying (you want to put a what on a ship?). The suggestion of putting it on an MBT chassis is awe-inspiring in a truly disturbing way, and that'd certainly solve the range problem. :)

- C.

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

[Tegyrius]

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

There you had to go and throw a plausibility wrench in my writeup...

- C.

[Tegyrius]

Ah, screw it. I had to write this to get the image out of my head; might as well post it.

- C.

------

XM2A61

Following the failure of the U.S. Army's DIVAD program, a number of experimental and interim AAA platforms arose. One such vehicle was the XM2A61, the result of a collaboration between the Armor School at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the nearby Naval Ordnance Station Louisville. The latter facility was the engineering and overhaul center for the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system. Several General Dynamics employees on NOSL's engineering team had previously worked on the company's own entrant in the DIVAD competition, which used the existing Phalanx radar in conjunction with a pair of Oerlikon 35mm autocannon. Their experience had led them to believe that the DIVAD requirement for larger-caliber guns was misguided: the existing VADS system's range limitations were due to its target acquisition systems, not the ballistics of the 20x102mm Vulcan. In mid-1991, from this starting point, they began exploring the feasibility of converting the naval Phalanx system to an AFV mount.

With the aid of Armor School officers who were intrigued by the concept, the General Dynamics engineers examined a variety of AFV chassis in the inventories of both the Armor School and Fort Knox's Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor. They concluded that the current M2 Bradley could be adapted to carry a Phalanx mount, its secondary control console, and auxiliary power and cooling units. NOSL technicians fabricated a new Bradley turret basket to accommodate a CIWS, while the Armor School's maintenance shop tackled the job of fitting the other equipment. One wag commissioned "XM2A61 Development Group" patches from a local embroidery shop. Over the 1992 Christmas holiday, the ad hoc project team surreptitiously tested the components' mating on an engineless Bradley hull and proved that the hardware configuration was physically feasible.

Frustratingly for the participants, that successful trial marked the end of their experiment. Further progress, particularly with the critical reprogramming of the Phalanx control computer, would have brought official scrutiny and questions about misappropriation of resources. The CIWS unit and the engineering drawings returned to NOSL's inventory and the other parts were quietly hidden in the Patton Museum's restoration shop.

The Bradley/Phalanx pairing remained secret until mid-1996, when the Army's AAA deficiency was becoming painfully obvious. The Armor School's commandant was in the office of one of his subordinates, discussing an unrelated matter, when his attention fell on the officer's "I Love Me" wall. One framed patch bore what appeared to be R2-D2 brandishing paired revolvers and riding a Bradley hull. Perplexed, the commandant inquired; his subordinate confessed. The conversation ended with, "Major, get your band back together. I know people who'll want to see this thing."

With quasi-official sanctioning, the resurrected project quickly moved ahead. Many of the original General Dynamics conspirators remained at NOSL, and the Army arranged transfers back to Fort Knox for several of its own former participants. The 1992 efforts had solved the majority of the physical engineering challenges, though a substantial amount of polishing remained to convert a kludge to a usable weapon system. The greatest obstacle was adapting naval point defense control software to land-based anti-aircraft employment. Lacking the necessary in-house programming resources, General Dynamics hired a team of graduate students from the University of Louisville's J.B. Speed Scientific School, promising student loan repayment and employment opportunities if they could deliver the software on time.

The first prototype rolled onto Fort Knox's training fields on January 17, 1997. Its ground clutter filtering was marginal and the only manual control for the gun was a large red kill switch, but target acquisition was a qualified success. Live-fire tests the following month were sufficient proof of concept for the Army to authorize funding for five more vehicles, as well as two dozen refit kits intended for existing Bradley hulls with damaged turrets. Improvements in the final deliveries included fully debugged software (contrary to later claims, not adapted from a computer game), sound dampening for the gun, and a crude CCTV gunsight and manual aiming system (more for self-protection against enemy ground forces than any hope of crew-directed AAA engagement).

The Army's construction goals ran into a roadblock when the Navy protested the misappropriation of so many CIWS systems. Throughout the spring of 1997, NOSL and the Armor School continued building the remainder of the vehicles and refit kits while generals and admirals wrangled over gun procurement. A congressional hearing in May finally established that the Navy actually had a small surplus of Phalanx units, thanks in part to the loss of hulls that otherwise would have mounted them. The Navy reluctantly released enough CIWS to satisfy the initial order. The refit kits arrived in Europe in mid-July, with the five production vehicles following in August.

Throughout the remainder of the war, units that received the vehicles and refit kits regarded them as a mixed blessing. The auxiliary power unit, added to provide electricity for the Phalanx system without the use of the Bradley's engine, frequently vented exhaust inside the hull. Likewise, firing the gun a was a choking and deafening experience, thanks to propellant fumes and a 3,000 round/minute cyclic rate. The Army had no parts or technicians for the CIWS radar and computers, creating a dependency on the Navy that most units circumvented in a variety of creative manners. A two-man crew was hard-pressed to keep up with vehicle maintenance requirements, let alone the electronics' specialized needs. The Army lacked paint of a formula appropriate for the radar housing, leading to the oft-mocked (and tactically unsound) image of a woodland-camouflage Bradley sporting a towering, haze-gray sore thumb. Aviators loathed the system, as the only provision for IFF discrimination was a radio call to the crew prior to flying into the gun's engagement envelope. Fratricide was not an unknown occurrence; nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls. In one notorious incident filmed by a German news crew, an MLRS battery found its outbound rockets under fire from a nearby CIWS.

For all its faults, the Bradley/Phalanx was an effective AAA platform when employed as intended. In fully autonomous mode, the gun swiftly and reliably killed targets out to 4 km, even attack helicopters executing pop-up attacks. The vehicle was able to keep pace with Abrams and Bradley forces, as the original DIVAD program had intended. The CIWS' innate stabilization, designed to handle heavy seas, enabled the gun to engage targets even while the vehicle was bounding over rough terrain. In the latter months of the war, a dearth of air targets brought the surviving units into ground support use, where 20mm Vulcans proved messily lethal against infantry and soft-skinned vehicles. Though no records of such incidents exist, numerous apocryphal stories claimed that the system was capable of interdicting incoming ATGMs.

Due to the project's irregular nature, the XM2A61 designation was well-established by the time the Army procurement system tried to standardize the system. After a months-long battle to assign the Bradley/Phalanx the M2A4 number, Army officials conceded defeat and codified the mock designation. They did attempt to formalize a nickname of "Hoplite," playing on the "Phalanx" motif, but this appeared only in official documentation. To its designers and crews, the XM2A61 was the Louisville Slugger.

2.0 Traits

As per donor Bradley hull (either M2 or M2A2), except:

Price: $150,000 (R/-)
RF: None.
Stabilization: None.
Armament: Vulcan 20mm ADA autocannon
Ammo: 2,100x20mm (989 rounds ready in ammo drum, remainder stowed as cargo)
Crew: 2
Mnt: 11
Turret armor: TF 2, TS 2, TR 2

Activating or deactivating the CIWS system's autonomous air defense mode requires an action on the part of the vehicle commander. In this mode, which requires a working radar and targeting computer, the Vulcan's Range is doubled to 900 and it has good stabilization and a +4 rangefinder. No character attack actions are possible; the system functions as its own gunner with Initiative 6 and Heavy Weapons 6. The only action it may take is an attack, it may attack only airborne targets, and it must attack any such target within the Vulcan's maximum range. If presented with multiple valid targets, it will attack the closest. If two or more are at roughly equal range, it will first attack the one whose current flight path is most closely pointed at the vehicle.

[Panther Al]

I love it. :)

"nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls."

I can sooooo see that happening with a kludged up system like that.

But on a more serious note, Engaging ATGM's? I can buy that, the system was designed to shoot down missiles after all. I can easily see a commander placing one in and armoured assualt with a mission of intercepting incoming missiles, at least till the sovs learned that the slugger needs to be struck out asap.

[Tegyrius]

I love it. :)

Thanks! This was fun to write. Just barely plausible enough to work, I think.

"nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls."

I can sooooo see that happening with a kludged up system like that.

The mental image of it interdicting outbound friendly MLRS rounds was what sold me on this.

But on a more serious note, Engaging ATGM's? I can buy that, the system was designed to shoot down missiles after all. I can easily see a commander placing one in and armoured assualt with a mission of intercepting incoming missiles, at least till the sovs learned that the slugger needs to be struck out asap.

*nod* I gave that some serious though, and I might yet update the writeup. I didn't want it to come across as too uber a system, though, particularly with its drastically shortened development cycle. On the other hand, I have to admit that one of these providing ATGM interdiction for a whole armor platoon on the move is the sort of thing that would look really good on film. I don't know how well it'd handle ground clutter that close, though - what's the usual flight altitude of an ATGM (prior to popping up for top attack)?

- C.

[Legbreaker]

That is just AWESOME!!! :D

I can sooooo see it being a double edged sword though, potentially attacking even fast moving ground vehicles within it's line of sight. Perhaps the fix for this was a minimum firing angle of say 20 degrees above the horizontal in automatic?
That would prevent automatically firing on friendly forces, but also prevent attacks against most incoming missiles. :/
Manual control wouldn't have the depression restrictions, but would loose the high tech target aquisiton (and still prevent accurate firing at missiles - could get lucky though...).

[copeab]

Yeah that is one of the down falls. I think for most part, US Troops haven't come under constant enemy aircraft since Korea. Yeah, ask the veterans who have been under fire and it doesn't take an genius to figure out after 6 weeks of constant bombing, why so many of the Iraqi Army just gave up in 1991.

Past history shows that once you lose air superiority (or never had it), your ground troops are in for a world of hurt. Mobile AAA systems won't stop your ground forces from being destroyed, only delay it.

[Mohoender]

Nice, real nice:cool:

[Abbott Shaull]

Past history shows that once you lose air superiority (or never had it), your ground troops are in for a world of hurt. Mobile AAA systems won't stop your ground forces from being destroyed, only delay it.

Sadly almost everyone realizes this. As well as the other axiom that Air Superiority doesn't mean squat until you put boots on the ground.

[Targan]

Great work Tegyrius, and very entertaining to read. That kind of crazy firepower would have fit in so well with my last campaign.

[copeab]

Sadly almost everyone realizes this.


Sorry, didn't mean to state the obvious ;)

[Abbott Shaull]

With the lack of interest of have AAA units the US Army loses some of it abilities of using them against ground targets. It was one of the ideas that I always found fascinating the effect of them being turned on ground targets....

[dragoon500ly]

With the lack of interest of have AAA units the US Army loses some of it abilities of using them against ground targets. It was one of the ideas that I always found fascinating the effect of them being turned on ground targets....

Always heard that the ADA people didn't want to train for thier guns being used in ground combat.

[Abbott Shaull]

Always heard that the ADA people didn't want to train for thier guns being used in ground combat.

Yeah who could blame them, the ammo they use/waste trying to shoot down aircraft would pale in compared to what they could expend on ground combat....

[rcaf_777]

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

This is a peacetime problem (HA HA we at peace why did'nt I get the memo) in theory a full out shooting war more equipment is release from stockpiles and production ramps up to meet production goals set by the production broads, in theory, but then agian in theory communism works too

[dragoon500ly]

This is a peacetime problem (HA HA we at peace why did'nt I get the memo) in theory a full out shooting war more equipment is release from stockpiles and production ramps up to meet production goals set by the production broads, in theory, but then agian in theory communism works too

Well, the whole reason behind the at-sea-swaps is that there were no stockpiles to draw from.

While the Regan-era Navy was rushing to field 300+ warships and build naval bases in every state that had a sea coast, there was a lack of support to build supply ships as well as the necessary weapon systems needed for the fleet. There were shortfalls in the Mk45 127mm gun, the Mk75 76mm gun and the Mk15 Phalanx not to mention in the Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers. Hell, there were Perry-class "figs" that went to sea with no gun armaments beyond a pair of .50-calibers!!!

A former Marine buddy of mine stationed at the Pentagon during this period swears that certain Marine Generals were ready to use rusty bayonets on certain Navy admirals unless funds were released for new amphibious ships.

And then you toss in having the Navy release one of their badly needed weapons systems to the Army....World War Three would have broken out in the E-Ring of the Pentagon!!!

With a looming war threat, I can see the NATO powers accelerating current production as much as possible, stuff already in the pipeline. But wasting resources, money and above all else, precious time to build, test and field new systems....I wouldn't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about that taking place. Even in the canon material, the US military was "seizing" equipment destined for allies in order to equip US formations.

[Legbreaker]

This lack of basic weapon systems goes a long way towards explaining why the Soviet fleet(s) were able to so comprehensively destroy the Nato fleets.

[dragoon500ly]

This lack of basic weapon systems goes a long way towards explaining why the Soviet fleet(s) were able to so comprehensively destroy the Nato fleets.

True, to an extent...but please remember that as bad as it was for NATO, the Ren Banner Fleets had it even worse. Just think about some yokel that doesn't speak Russian, hasn't been to school since the sixth grade, drafted for three years, pulling maintenance on your ship.

For example, on May 13, 1984, the Soviet Northern Fleet's Stednaya ammunition depot at Severomorsk suffered a major explosion. The blast was so large that it triggered the US nuclear warning satellites. While no nukes were lost, the Soviets suffered the loss of over one third of their large antiship missiles, SS-N-3, SS-N-12, AS-4, AS-6 etc. as well as surface-to-air missiles,along with the facilities that maintained the missiles as well as several hundred skilled personnel. The fires burned for over five days.

[Legbreaker]

While that state of very poor affairs was true IRL, T2K is a game based on "what if".
In the alternate reality that is T2K, the Soviets were competent, dangerous and not crippled by regular political purges of their best and brightest. Their military actually got paid on time, trained to a decent standard and their equipment was maintained according to the manufacturers recommendations.

It's this "what if" factor that seems to be missing in a lot of peoples posts. Reality is great, but it can only go so far in producing a world ripe for roleplaying as we know it.

[dragoon500ly]

While that state of very poor affairs was true IRL, T2K is a game based on "what if".
In the alternate reality that is T2K, the Soviets were competent, dangerous and not crippled by regular political purges of their best and brightest. Their military actually got paid on time, trained to a decent standard and their equipment was maintained according to the manufacturers recommendations.

It's this "what if" factor that seems to be missing in a lot of peoples posts. Reality is great, but it can only go so far in producing a world ripe for roleplaying as we know it.

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game? Sure the Soviets tanks were crap when taken on an individual basis, but it wasn't going to be one-on-one engagements was it?

US battalion exercises of the period always started with the assumption that it would be taking on at least a Soviet Regiment. Troops in the Fulda and Hof Gaps could look over the Iron Curtin and see the division that was going to assault through the gap. NATO in the '70s and '80s was not in a good position, the US troops had the most supplies (30 days) and there were grave doubts about how heavy the usage for the supplies (above all ammo) would be. Some of the NATO partners had supplies for as little as 7 days. This was part of the reason that tactical nuclear weapons were always such a part of NATO pre-war planning.

BUT, it all boils down to two massive militaries going ball out for each other. And on the scale of the fighting...no matter how compentent or not the militaries were, it was going to be a blood-letting on a massive scale.

[Legbreaker]

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game?

Boon? No. Vital? Absolutely!
BUT a GM has to be flexible enough to know that the Real World Situation isn't even close to the Game World Situation. Sure doctrine and tactics are basically the same, by in T2K Nato essentially got hammered by a much better Pact. Pact soldiers in T2K are on average a cut above what they were/are IRL.

The GM has to appreciate and apply this difference, otherwise the war would have been over and done with in the first few months, and there would be no world wide disruption and devastation so necessary to create a rich roleplaying environment.

Even if you believe that early war Pact soldiers were little more than unskilled cannon fodder, it has to be understood that by 2000 the vast majority have plenty of combat experience, and if their commanders have any sense at all, months of military training and retraining during quiet times.

A GM who applies Real World capabilities to either side is doing the game as a whole a major disservice by disrupting the delicate balance the writers strove to create.

[schnickelfritz]

I think I will end up either using the M757 Blazer as shown in the V1 US Vehicle Guide or just end up doing pretty much what the Army did in real life, keeping the PIVAD in the field. Most of the machines will be tracked PIVAD platforms, with the rest being truck borne, and a few LAV versions added for flavor.

The easiest thing to do probably would have been to update the sensors, add a box launcher for 4 Stingers and slap it on a modified Bradley hull, especially those with wiped out turrets.

LOL, if I only had the time to build a 1/35 model of the thing!

Thanks!
Dave

[madmikechoi]

Well, thats the thing:

NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate)

Correction, that was a Soviet/Russian holy mantra but the US picked it up for different reasons. In order to provide ballistic missile defense you need everybody's radars and satellites working as one big happy family. That requires the BIG BOARD (or at least a fair amount of computing power and powerpoint) and BIG BOARDS REQUIRE BIG TENTS. AND IN BIG TENTS THERE'S SHINY BRASS WHOSE JOBS ARE DEPENDENT ON SHIT WORKING :D.

Even during the Cold War the HAWK and Nike Hercules belts did require something pretty akin to a multinational air defense network and had to- especially when the Luftwaffe and RNLAF bought the Patriot to replace the Nike systems. And even back then they were eyeing something to replace the HAWKs (which never happened or maybe they just accept MEADS will replace both HAWK and Patriot).

While tactical air defense is supposed to different but since much of so called tactical air defense requires low altitude point/near point coverage of large static targets such as airfields/airbases, corps/army assembly areas, ports, rail depots, and theater HQ needs to be networked so BLUE AIR doesn't get turned into spare parts there was a reason why by the late 80s Chaparral battalions were paired w/ HAWK and Patriot units in Germoney and garrisoned in kasernes suspiciously close to places like Bitburg, Rhein Main, etc

IOW Tw2K- we could expect to see networked systems in the West w/ divisional ADA battalions tied into a larger sensor network (plug and pray) besides the batteries bringing their own MPQ-64s and/or aerostats along w/ setting GP tents or Hummvees and 5 tons w/ expandable shelters providing power and HVAC to a whole bunch of folding tables and chairs and laptops

Mad Mike c

[Targan]

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

[Olefin]

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

Nine years! Is that a record?

[Legbreaker]

IMO thread necro is ALWAYS better than having a dozen new ones all on the same topic.

So what I'm getting is that AA in western militaries would rely, or at least lean heavily on the internet and existing communications infrastructure to optimise performance?

[Louied]

Found this in my archives..........

[Vespers War]

Found this in my archives..........

In retrospect, ADATS was a less than ideal weapon. SALH has problems tracking high-speed targets, so many fixed-wing attack aircraft will be difficult to hit. The combined shaped-charge/frag warhead is similar to the M830A1 MPAT, which had trouble neutralizing infantry in the open, so its proximity-kill capability is questionable. There's also the question of over-tasking the vehicle crew, since they're now expected to be both anti-air defense and anti-ground combat, and need to both be trained for each type of engagement and prepared for either type. And making a missile capable of engaging both ground and air targets with a complex warhead meant each round was more expensive than comparable single-purpose missiles of either type.

In real life, the ADATS missile only entered service with Canada (mounted on M113 APCs) and Thailand (as a fixed emplacement). The US Army went with Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicles (Bradleys with Stinger dismounts) and later the M6 Linebacker (Bradleys with a 4-shot Stinger box launcher replacing the 2-shot TOW launcher, with 6 reloads in the vehicle). The Linebacker wasn't available until the late 90s, but the alternate timeline could have the Army realize ADATS was a bridge too far earlier and develop the Linebacker sooner.

[madmikechoi]

IMO thread necro is ALWAYS better than having a dozen new ones all on the same topic.

So what I'm getting is that AA in western militaries would rely, or at least lean heavily on the internet and existing communications infrastructure to optimise performance?

Well seeing how the Internet was originally a DoD/ARPA creations to link various learning/research institutions to begin w/.

So even in Twilight we can expect Western ADA units to be reliant on modems and internet type protocols so you can get a reasonable early warning picture as well as their radars- being able to get a ballistic missile launch from a spacebird and then tracked by various stations until your unit can do something, anything is better than trying to scan your tiny piece of the sky and hope for the best. This goes double or triple for corps based ADA brigades which will often have stress anti-ballistic defense over dealing w/ conventional air breathing threats.

Tactical which is to say divisional and below they're gonna be concerned about attack helos, UAVs, and fast jets stupid enough to fly that low even if they wanna go fast. Maybe add the occasional prop COIN bird since they offer a lot of bang for the buck and employed w/ one's own forward line of troops (FLOT). Still expect a div ADA battalion's HHQ battalion to bring their own radar coverage and relay equipment along w/ ground work stations and everything that goes with that- big shiny mess trailers, gensets running 24-7-365, tents galore, air conditioning units, etc. The shooting batteries of anything from 8 launchers to often more have to set up their equivalent to FDCs w/ networked systems at higher food chains b/c if nothing else sharing is caring or more likely if nothing's happening; battalion TF org isn't that permanent when dealing with the exigencies of war

Mad Mikec

[madmikechoi]

In retrospect, ADATS was a less than ideal weapon. SALH has problems tracking high-speed targets, so many fixed-wing attack aircraft will be difficult to hit

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In return it's really hard to jam that laser command link. And yes laser guidance doesn't do that well in bad weather but remember bad weather grounds a/c for a reason.


. The combined shaped-charge/frag warhead is similar to the M830A1 MPAT, which had trouble neutralizing infantry in the open, so its proximity-kill capability is questionable.

Against grunts- either out in the open or even dug in? Sure. No arguments killing grunts is hard and should be hard. And they try and do their honest best when returning the favor.

Against a/c I think the warhead and fuzing does a good enough job- although most likely on the overkill side since again more optimized to crack armor open.


There's also the question of over-tasking the vehicle crew, since they're now expected to be both anti-air defense and anti-ground combat, and need to both be trained for each type of engagement and prepared for either type. And making a missile capable of engaging both ground and air targets with a complex warhead meant each round was more expensive than comparable single-purpose missiles of either type.

This may have been the classic case for the maneuver branches in Big Army wanting a fast antitank missile but at the time priority spending would go to somebody else. Big Army needed something and something fairly good to deal with deficits of Vulcan and Chaparral. The ADATS is a Mach 3 missile IIRC and as the Brits would say that's rather fuck off fast. And the Cold War was still going on so anything that you can shoot at the hordes of tanks and BMPs crossing the Fulda is also a plus as well.


In real life, the ADATS missile only entered service with Canada (mounted on M113 APCs) and Thailand (as a fixed emplacement). The US Army went with Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicles (Bradleys with Stinger dismounts) and later the M6 Linebacker (Bradleys with a 4-shot Stinger box launcher replacing the 2-shot TOW launcher, with 6 reloads in the vehicle). The Linebacker wasn't available until the late 90s, but the alternate timeline could have the Army realize ADATS was a bridge too far earlier and develop the Linebacker sooner.

Hence the ADA mantra of high and low. and a mix of both guns and missiles especially WRT tactical ADA. Remember there is such an animal as virtual attrition. A jet that pickled off his ordnance b/c a gun wasted several dozen rounds at him isn't going to do much else expect burn fuel- and that time in the air must be made up for resources on the ground. Not connecting your shots with an attack helo and said Hind fucks off for greener pastures is samey same. Nothing bad happens to your side and the bad guys have to spend time trying to find something else, somebody else to shoot.

My ideal Tw2k div ADA battalion for Big Army would have been a HHC battery, 4 line batteries, and service company. Each line battery would have had 8 ADATS and 8 Brad Blazers w/ 2 quad Stinger pods and the 25mm gatling- IOW the LAV ADA turret on a Brad What the ADATS cannot engage he DAKKA will and the Stinger will most likely cover the dead ground between the ADATS and 25mm HEI. If folks are overly concerned about lack of individual sensor coverage of the Blazer type turret then Raytheon/Thales had a smallish TRS radar so the vic commander can stare at a monochromatic screen


Mad Mikec

[madmikechoi]

Found this in my archives..........

While I enjoyed that article Armor it does miss several points. One Armor is the professional magazine of the Armor branch although over the years does cover the infuence/aspects of mech infantry (given that heavy brigades and battalion TFs are combined arms affairs).

Numero dos- the 35mm Bushmaster III was never designed for as AA weapon. For that there's the Oerlikon GD series. Chain guns are great for accuracy and reliability but they sacrifice rate of fire for that. To hunt ducks you want to put lead in the air and that's why you want Captain Insane-o cyclic rates of fire and proximity fuzed projectiles for a reason. IOW a high cyclic RoF will mean a denser cone of fire, a denser cone of fire will most likely equal a target being hit more than once. There's also intersecting cones of fire which is why 35mm AA guns on the Gepard were spaced far apart.

Also that many ADATS rounds on a pop up launcher will mean even a more complex hydraulic systems to lift the launch tubes out of the turret meaning sacrificing armor on what is a turret that will be marginally protected at best (but probably not much worse than standard since the turreted systems on ADA platforms are basically unarmored)

Finally given Tw2k verse- there would be no peace dividend so the US would likely keep tank production until the Big Turkey Day Nukeout. And as such using tank hulls would be at premium- either for AVLBs or combat engineering vehicles/assault breaching platforms possibly adopting a M1 based armored recovery platform as opposed the 88A2 (most likely due to using a boom crane to lift out a powerpack or concrete barriers/HESCOs is easier that pivot steering an entire vehicle to use an A frame crane).


Mad Mikec

[Raellus]

It seems like, compared to the WTO, NATO didn't put much stock/resources into the development and fielding of significant numbers of AAA platforms.

Why? I don't know for sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the US and NATO believed that aircraft were the best anti-aircraft weapon sytem, and that Army heads were content to let the AFs take on the job so that they could spend their limited budgets on more AFVs and SPGs.

Also, why did the US Army move away from the VADS? Yeah, 20mm rounds had limited effective range, but AAA is mostly for point defense anyway, and SAMS cover anything beyond AAA range so...

Frankly, NATOs eschewing of AAA was a mistake. Good thing we didn't have to find that out the hard way.

By contrast, the WTO militaries were lousy with AAA, both guided systems like the ZU-23-4 Shilka and the 2-K22 Tunguska, and sundry unguided systems running the gamut from 57mm to 14.5mm guns.

Even if AAA is not effective in combating aerial targets (or too effective and the enemy runs low on CAS airframes), AAA can be used to provide direct fire support for infantry against ground targets*. The vast majority of SAMs can not.

*The Russians found the ZU-23-4 Shilka SPAAG to be one of the most effective weapons platforms for urban warfare during the Chechen Wars due to its high ROF and ability to elevate to hit upper floors of multistory buildings.

Also a US VAD destroyed a Panamanian gunboat during Operation Just Cause. Try that with a Patriot SAM.

[madmikechoi]

It seems like, compared to the WTO, NATO didn't put much stock/resources into the development and fielding of significant numbers of AAA platforms.

Money/resources, in the end, are finite The reason the Heer dropped so much cash (remember a Gepard costs fifty percent more to twice as much as a Leo 1) was the generals and defense ministers remembered what it was like to be on receiving end of enemy air support. And they generally did not enjoy that experience :D.

The US OTOH made its holy mantra to establish air dominance from the beginning and never let it go. Both the Navy and the blue suited zoomies spent a fuckton of blood and treasure to develop SEAD systems and the doctrine to go w/ it whether it was nuking a corridor w/ SRAMs so bombers can launch cruise missiles or whether it was developing the B-2 to hunt mobile ICBM sites and their accompanying ADA network to cutting the Red Army's air defense troops in order to provide TACAIR.

Well- in the end, even if Big Army was or wasn't convinced... they were expected to provide air defense assets of air bases in England , FRG, Belgium, and the Netherlands or rely on host countries to do so.


Also, why did the US Army move away from the VADS? Yeah, 20mm rounds had limited effective range, but AAA is mostly for point defense anyway, and SAMS cover anything beyond AAA range so...

That's the theory but as people keep on telling the masses theory and reality doesn't always correspond well.

Even if there's nothing worth blotting out the sun for... guns are fun. And AAA is dakka, period. Whether it's digging in platoons of M19 GMC and waiting for the Chinese to start assembling on contact to M42 Dusters laying discontent on anybody trying to take shots at a convoy on a Vietnamese highway and the US government had just paved, your forces are sure to establish fire superiority quickly and definitively against non armored/mechanized forces.

The ROK Army for example are in no real hurry to retire any of their SP Vulcans until recently- and retiring the 20mm K263A1 VADS in favor of twin 30s is more about streamlining logistics in favor of a more effective caliber albeit w/ a lesser RoF.

Mad Mikec

[Tegyrius]

Not directly T2k, but related - the US Army is starting to fill the gap left by the retirement of the Bradley Linebacker:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades

The addition of the Hellfire launch rails is interesting. It's reminiscent of the original plans for the LAV-AD's modular mount and arguably makes this Stryker variant more than just a dedicated ADA platform.

- C.

[Raellus]

Even if there's nothing worth blotting out the sun for... guns are fun. And AAA is dakka, period. Whether it's digging in platoons of M19 GMC and waiting for the Chinese to start assembling on contact to M42 Dusters laying discontent on anybody trying to take shots at a convoy on a Vietnamese highway and the US government had just paved, your forces are sure to establish fire superiority quickly and definitively against non armored/mechanized forces.

The ROK Army for example are in no real hurry to retire any of their SP Vulcans until recently- and retiring the 20mm K263A1 VADS in favor of twin 30s is more about streamlining logistics in favor of a more effective caliber albeit w/ a lesser RoF.

During the Falklands Islands War, the British found out the danger of overreliance on SAMS for ground-based air defense. Apparently, though, this lesson did not influence NATO ADA doctrine. It's somewhat mind-boggling.

The other thing that AAA has going for it, is that AAA can be used against ground targets. For example, M3-mounted quad .50s saved the day again and again in Korea and Vietnam. You can't engage ground targets with most SAM systems (the only ones that come to mind that can are the Bofors RBS 70 MANPADS and ADATS the latter which, AFAIK, was only adopted by the Canadian military).

I have a feeling that US Army AAA fell victim to the belief that newer, higher-tech = better.

-

[CDAT]

This stood out to me reading the article. “There’s really no comparison to anything I’ve operated in my career,” Army Sergeant Andrew Veres, a member of 5-4th Air Defense Artillery said in an official interview. "Everything in these systems is an improvement – the survivability, mobility, dependability, off road ability – it gives us the ability to stay in the fight longer."

This shows just how low the bar has been set over the years. The Striker's survivability sucks, in my time as EOD in Iraq I never saw or heard of one surviving any serious hit, the armor did not even need to be penetrated, they caught fire like they were made out of TP, now this is not saying that none of them ever did survive, but just that I have no knowledge of it happening if they were hit. The striker mobility is fine for a wheeled vehicle, but any tracked vehicle is going to be much better off road (where I think you would be spending most of your time in full out combat, not anti-insurgent warfare) so on road sure, off nope. Dependability, very likely is going to be much better than a track, they do need more maintenance. And then back to mobility, this time specificley off road, what is he comparing it to, saying it is an improvement?

[pmulcahy11b]

Not directly T2k, but related - the US Army is starting to fill the gap left by the retirement of the Bradley Linebacker:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades

The addition of the Hellfire launch rails is interesting. It's reminiscent of the original plans for the LAV-AD's modular mount and arguably makes this Stryker variant more than just a dedicated ADA platform.

- C.

I saw that on a YouTube channel (IIRC, Lockheed Martin's channel). The video showed the turret mounted on a variety of AFV platforms, such as the M113, M1117, Bradley, LAV-25, and a few others. The video also showed a variant turret armed with four Stingers and four Hellfires, along with the 30mm autocannon.

[Tegyrius]

This shows just how low the bar has been set over the years. The Striker's survivability sucks, in my time as EOD in Iraq I never saw or heard of one surviving any serious hit, the armor did not even need to be penetrated, they caught fire like they were made out of TP, now this is not saying that none of them ever did survive, but just that I have no knowledge of it happening if they were hit. The striker mobility is fine for a wheeled vehicle, but any tracked vehicle is going to be much better off road (where I think you would be spending most of your time in full out combat, not anti-insurgent warfare) so on road sure, off nope. Dependability, very likely is going to be much better than a track, they do need more maintenance. And then back to mobility, this time specificley off road, what is he comparing it to, saying it is an improvement?

If he's an E-5, presumably his only prior experience was with the HMMWV Avenger. The last Bradley Linebackers were withdrawn in, what, 2006?

A Stryker may well be an improvement in terms of survivability compared to an M1097 chassis. The Stryker is likely to be newer than the donor HMMWV, too, so... yeah, in game terms, Wear 1 versus Wear 7 is going to be more dependable.

As far as maneuverability, I can't imagine that the ground pressure is any better, given the Stryker's vastly greater weight. Perhaps the center of gravity is lower than that of the Avenger? That thing always looks like it's going to roll over at the next speed bump or stiff breeze.

I saw that on a YouTube channel (IIRC, Lockheed Martin's channel). The video showed the turret mounted on a variety of AFV platforms, such as the M113, M1117, Bradley, LAV-25, and a few others. The video also showed a variant turret armed with four Stingers and four Hellfires, along with the 30mm autocannon.

Not gonna lie, now I want to see that on an M60 hull as a rough BMPT equivalent.

- C.

[unipus]

When were M163s pulled out of service? Who used them last? Where did they go?

It is interesting that many other nations have more than enough seen the value of SPAAG -- and on the original topic, MBT-hull based AAA. Finland operates a number of these now with twin Oerlikons on Leopard 2A4 hulls. I'm sure their reasons for doing so are largely terrain-based, but from that sense the US military (expected to operate on just about every terrain in the world) would also conceivably see the same benefits? Britain experimented with the same thing but AFAIK didn't put any into service.

AAA is just flat-out useful in any number of roles, even if aircraft aren't around -- and anyone from WW2 to Syria today could tell you that. SAMs (and even AAMs) can certainly in some cases be used against ground targets but... that's a rare occurrence and of pretty limited effect.

In a T2K sense, what happens to all the SAM launchers? The missiles are probably all but gone, the targets are certainly gone... do units just abandon or convert their Rapiers and their Avengers and Strelas? That's an interesting question.

On the other hand, the continued universal usefulness of a Shilka is more than obvious.

[Tegyrius]

Per Wikipedia, the last VADS were withdrawn from service by 1994 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS#Upgrades_and_replacement).

It's been a while since I did any deep reading on this, but I seem to recall that post-Desert Storm, the Army's assumption was that the USAF would so roughly handle any adversary that American forces would never lack air superiority again. Open to correction from better-informed correspondents.

With regards to the SAM launcher platforms, a vehicle is still a vehicle. High-Wear chassis were probably cannibalized for parts for vehicles of the same family. Low-Wear chassis would probably have the SAM hardware and electronics unbolted/torched off and be converted to battle taxi, gun truck, or general utility use, depending on suitability. Could make for an interesting encounter.

- C.

[unipus]

Would probably make prime candidates for conversion to rocket-pod artillery carriers.

[Raellus]

It seems that sometimes the US Army has a very short-term institutional memory. It often seems to focus on just the most recent experience, and use that almost exclusively to anticipate future needs/contingencies. Desert Storm may have proved instructive in many ways, but the Iraqis were not the Soviets, and the previous large-scale conflict, which necessitated next to no AAA requirement (being as enemy aircraft posed no realistic threat to US and Allied ground forces), still showed the use of AAA on the modern battlefield. There were numerous instances in the Vietnam War when US Army AAA still came in handy. For example, during the fighting for Hue in 1968, US Army M42 Duster 40mm SPAGs provided much needed direct fire support, and proved quite useful in MOUT.

I reckon that the US Army also probably doesn't look very hard at other nations' experiences when assessing its own current and near future needs. For example, it seems to have ignored the Russian's successful use of ZU-23-4 Shilkas in the ground-support role in Chechnya- again, a conflict where enemy aircraft posed no threat to the Russians- especially in MOUT.

Even if one doesn't expect enemy aircraft to be a major threat on future battlefields, it seems really myopic to eliminate a weapon system that can be used against that threat (just in case), and in a very useful secondary capacity (direct fire infantry support), from US Army TOEs.

-

[Southernap]

This has been an ongoing debate since the end of the major combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know the US Army bought some of the older CIWS systems that the USN was taking out of service and made the C-RAM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oTf4YCyDcw) which is a system that could be mounted on HMETT that can be used against rockets and mortar shells. Which it has effectively in the last few years.

After the ballistic missile attack against the base in Iraq, there have been questions about where the US Army ADA units are. The reality is there are only so many of them and the requirements are huge if you look at it. From Iraq and Afghanistan, to Korea, Japan, Guam and on over to places like Europe where there is a need. The US Army has chosen, like it has for a number of other important missions like EW, to divest itself of that mission because of costs to buy or maintain platforms that already exist. Let alone the RDT&E for things like advance helicopters, advances firearms, uniforms, or even meals. All of which has sucked up budget line and with the every decreasing military budgets from the heyday of the 1960s. There are decisions being made based less on what could happen historically and more on what hope and pray.

For historical context the last major offensive by Opposing force air units against the US Military was the Korean War when the Korean People's Air Force was able in the opening months of the war to get in some attacks on forward operating bases where the USAF was based. That was approximately 1950. Since then the US has enjoyed control of the air during all major offensives. The only thing that has stymied them was ballistic and cruise missiles, with near misses during the Gulf War in 1991 and a direct hit, then again in 2003 when the Iraqis tried to use some HY-2 Silkworms against bases in Kuwait. Where the engagement of those Silkworms happened to be real close. Short of those threats, the only other thing has been 122mm rockets and mortar shells from very mobile platoons of men that are hard to target with counter battery fire since they have typically set up to shoot using only basic local tools and then immediately leave once the round of fire is complete. If not already left as in some weather conditions have allowed them to use things like the snow to have a mortar tube or a rocket tube already to fire allowing the melting of the snow to light the fuze or even drop the round down the tube to be fired.

[Stackmouse]

Finland operates a number of these now with twin Oerlikons on Leopard 2A4 hulls. I'm sure their reasons for doing so are largely terrain-based, but from that sense the US military (expected to operate on just about every terrain in the world) would also conceivably see the same benefits?


We have a handful of those Leopard Marksman SPAAGs in service to provide "short range anti-aircraft coverage" for the main armoured units. The only reason we have those in service is that we had the marksman turrets in storage and we had Leopards to spare for the modification. You know, "we already have the components, so why not"-type of situation.

The ability to use SPAAGs against ground targets is a "better than nothing" solution when you already have them in your TOE. Most of the "use scenarios" are based on "we had nothing else" or "those things had nothing else to do"-situations. I would recommend against using resources for getting new SPAAG-type systems for ground targets only.

The "modern threats" - UAVs, loitering munitions, etc - will most likely require new capabilities for armoured forces, in a form of mobile CIWS/C-RAM-type weapon system. I'm curious to see what kind of solutions for these challenges there will be in the future.

Bonus: link for a video of Leopard Marksman shooting
https://twitter.com/Maavoimat/status/866205654918287360?s=20

[Raellus]

Back in the day...

I'm just surprised that the US Army didn't see a need for a fast-moving*, mobile AAA platform during the last few years of the Cold War. At that time, the Soviets were spinning up their new Mi-28 Havok and Ka-50 Hokum attack helicopters, both of which posed a threat to US armor (especially when it was on the attack). This would have been the perfect excuse for the US Army to request a new SPAAG. Perhaps the expensive boondoggle of the Sgt. York program soured all involved on SPAAGs.

I think this was the rationale behind the M691 Diana SPAAG in the v1 US Army Vehicle Guide. I used to think it was silly, and probably prohibitively expensive given the pricey M1 chassis, but now I'm not so sure. It had to be speedy enough to keep up with Abrams on the run. I think my main gripe now is that it's armament of twin 20mm canon seems too light. If you're going to use an MBT chassis, load it up! I think 40mm or 30mm would have been a lot better (longer-legged and heavier hitting)- or 25mm at the minimum.

Today...

Drones are becoming a pervasive feature of the modern battlefield, and are already in use as improvised AT weapons (either in suicide attack mode or dropping bombs on AFVs' thinner top armor). In my mind, this brings back the need for SPAAGs. I imagine a Vulcan canon would make short work of most low-flying drones. However, once drone swarms start arriving over the battlefield...

-

[Raellus]

Just stumbled across this by accident while looking for a prototype AT jet marketed during the late '80s (I still haven't found it). IIRC, this doc was shared here on the forum before, but I can remember when or where.

https://thetwilightwar.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/7/12075290/us_air_defence_vehicles_02-01-12.pdf

The creator is James Langham, a member of this forum. I think he's consulting on Free League's v4 as well.

-

[madmikechoi]

Back in the day...

I'm just surprised that the US Army didn't see a need for a fast-moving*, mobile AAA platform during the last few years of the Cold War. At that time, the Soviets were spinning up their new Mi-28 Havok and Ka-50 Hokum attack helicopters, both of which posed a threat to US armor (especially when it was on the attack). This would have been the perfect excuse for the US Army to request a new SPAAG. Perhaps the expensive boondoggle of the Sgt. York program soured all involved on SPAAGs.

There's only so much money Big Army can throw at any system and each dime was fought tooth and nail at the Pentagram. Succeed and the colonels
get stars and then cushy gigs w/ the various beltway bandits that masquerade as defense contractors. Fail... well they work for contractors so it's all good :D

If we decide that Big Army decided to get its head out of their proverbial ass and recite the ADA holy mantra of having a gun/missile mix and SHORAD is not the destruction but to preserve the assets of the brigades and battalions from enemy air attack. In which case even damaging enemy fixed wing and rotary platforms or making said individuals piss off for greener pastures is just as good as turning them into fireballs and greasy stains (virtual attrition is a thing but Congresspeople do not understand that)


Today...

Drones are becoming a pervasive feature of the modern battlefield, and are already in use as improvised AT weapons (either in suicide attack mode or dropping bombs on AFVs' thinner top armor). In my mind, this brings back the need for SPAAGs. I imagine a Vulcan canon would make short work of most low-flying drones. However, once drone swarms start arriving over the battlefield...

Keep in mind the sensors we have today did what folks wanted to do back in the 80s and 90s? Air cooled? Sure. Doppler tracking? You can do it w/ raspberry pi kit. Integrated into a network and able to share data w/ multiple platforms no matter if it's in the air or it floats? Yeah, we can do that sez Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, and Lockmart.

Even a cheap gun type system like the Blazer (in retrospect the mil designation would have been something M10xx but GDW didn't know that or thought Big Army would have gone back to cover the M700 series) fitted w/ those tiny dinner plate AESA radars would have given tracking coverage at least out to 10 plus klicks/5 nautical miles depending on terrain and weather. And something like the ADATS w/ a 3D AESA radar while overkill against certain UAVs may end up as a limited coverage against tactical ballistic missiles given software and rocket motor mods.

Mad Mikec

[Vespers War]

Back in the day...

I'm just surprised that the US Army didn't see a need for a fast-moving*, mobile AAA platform during the last few years of the Cold War. At that time, the Soviets were spinning up their new Mi-28 Havok and Ka-50 Hokum attack helicopters, both of which posed a threat to US armor (especially when it was on the attack). This would have been the perfect excuse for the US Army to request a new SPAAG. Perhaps the expensive boondoggle of the Sgt. York program soured all involved on SPAAGs.

-

ADATS was supposed to lead to that. It was a dual-purpose SAM/ATGM with a top speed of Mach 3, a 10 kilometer range, and semi-active laser homing (jamming was more of an issue than dazzling when it started development). An 8-missile turret would be placed on top of a Bradley, along with a 25mm Bushmaster. There was also talk of developing an M1-derived Air Ground Defense System with a pair of six-cell ADATS launchers and twin 35mm Bushmasters working in teams of six to engage up to 20 targets simultaneously, per the July-August 1996 issue of Armor. The missiles never reached the required milestones for reliability, MTBF, or serviceability.

The M1 AGDS concept had been around earlier as the Thomson-CSF/LTV Liberty series of proposals for the LOS-Forward-Heavy AAA system, as described here (http://thewednesdayreport.com/twr/faads.htm):
Liberty - AMX-30 chassis, 6 Shahine (Crotale) missiles
Liberty I - M1 chassis, 2 12.7mm MGs, 6 Shahine or 12 VT-1 (Crotale NG) missiles
Liberty II - M1 chassis, 2 25mm Bushmaster, 12 VT-1 missiles
Martin Marietta and Oerlikon won the competition with ADATS, which then flopped even worse than the Sgt. York.

[swaghauler]

Pardon my typing, I haven't gotten home to get my poor ailing computer yet, so I'm typing this on my old S7 smartphone. The touchscreen keyboard leaves a lot to be desired.
I don't have it in the truck with me but there is a book printed by the Army every year that they give to Congress. It is a "wish list" of weapon systems they are seeking funding for. Skyhorse Publishing usually puts out the declassified versions. I have one from 2016 and the Army was seeking funding for two AAA systems to test.

The first was a self-contained module like the CROWS (common remotely operated weapon system) with a millimeter wave radar and an optical tracker paired to a GAU 19 50 Caliber gatling gun and TWO 4-round Stinger Missile modules. It had 2k rounds on the mount and was designed as a swarm drone defense system with a secondary ground attack capability. The unit would be mounted to either a Hummer or a JLTV with the crew firing the mount remotely from inside the uparmored vehicle. Unit weight was listed as around 2 metric tons fully armed with remote fire control station. This is only slightly heavier than a Navy MK38 25mm gun mount.

The other unit (fully experimental) caught my eye because it would fill the gap between the PATRIOT and SHORAD. The proposal was an M109 chasiss fitted with a tall turret containing an AESA radar, IR Tracker, IR optical sensor and Laser ranger/Designator. The weapon system consisted of either a 3 or 4 round box launcher trainable in elevation on either side of the turret for Rolling Airframe Missiles AND a center-mounted 57mm MK110 Cannon (with a pretty long barrel). The canon was equipped with a dual feeding mechanism on either side of the cannon containing 10 rounds in a vertically feed hopper and ejected its spent casings forward over the barrel and towards the right of the hull deck (to avoid the driver). 40 additional rounds would be stored in the turret bustle for 60 rounds on the mount. The listed Crew is driver, gunner, commander, and two loaders for the 57mm (one on either side of the cannon). I don't know if any more RAM Missiles were carried. The radar folded down for transport just like most modern SPAAGs can do. It looked about as tall as an M109A6 with an equally large turret and turret bustle (the back of the turret where ammo is stored). The drawing had access doors on the back of the turret (presumably to speed up reloading the ammo). Effective engagement range was touted as 10km with a 6km slant range for the cannon. The IR Optical tracking allows for NOE aircraft engagement and operations in a radar-denied environment. IDK if any actual prototypes are running around yet but the Marines new hybrid LAV turret's Stinger weapons mount looks suspiciously like the SHORAD mount's box launchers.

[Ursus Maior]

I think, the bigger picture is important here. SPAAG projects died with the Peace Dividend for obvious reasons. Germany was lucky to have one of the best systems in the world (if not the best, at least in the west) and kept the Gepard running until 2011. Combined with Roland on its Marder IFV chassis, that was a very solid protection level.

In an alternate history where the USSR remains a larger thread than Russia during the 1990s was, even in a T2K v. 4 variant, where a short Peace Dividend seems to have been the case, SPAAG systems would have probably been a thing for most NATO armies. So, the usual question is, what to buy. There is DIY and OTS. All do-it-yourself projects are costly and can fail (cf. the M247 Sergeant York), but gains to national knowledge and economy are a clear pro. OTS solutions were available back in the day with the Gepard an obvious solution and the Marksman system a less known one. Still, the US Armed Forces usually had problems buying these things from abroad, even from their allies, with Roland being a notable exception.

Solutions from within the USA were available though and either failed historically mostly because of the changing political climate (ADATS on M113 or Bradley) or were bought in only small numbers. The M6 linebacker and the M998 HMMWV Avenger as well as the M1097 Heavy HMMWV Avenger respectively were bought, but did not perform as well as other solutions, if I am correctly informed. M163 VADS always was only a stop-gap solution.

Buying Marksman could have been a solution, though. Buying British instead of German might have been politically easier, especially if one would have used older M48 or M60 Patton tanks as a chassis. The former was offered as a solution for Marksman by Marconi Electronic Systems from ca. 1994 onwards, the latter was never offered, but I do not see, why it could not have worked.

While keeping the M48 chassis alive for another 10-20 years might not seem like a good idea, Marksman would have been a cheap solution that could offer first tier results (in the mid-1990s). The M48 chassis is well suited for the job, thousands were available readily, since the M48 was becoming clearly obsolete as an MBT, even with all upgrades available (L7 105 mm gun, MOLF laser range finder, thermal sights, modular applique armor or even ERA and a new MTU power pack). As a SPAAG a new power pack and the Marksman turret would have been more than sufficient, though. In an alternate history, where the USSR remains a real, though diminished threat, it is likely that the Detroit Arsenal would have remained fully operational as a tank factory, allowing for a swift modification process during the 1990s.

[Raellus]

Thanks, Ursus. I don't recall reading about the Marksman system before. It looks pretty promising. Although ostensibly British, its multinational nature might make it less palatable to the Pentagon than a single-country source like Gepard.

Do you know if the M48 chassis (or M60) could have supported the Gepard turret? I can see the Pentagon making a deal to produce said turret here in the states and fit it to an all-American MBT chassis. The resulting SPAAG wouldn't quite be able to keep up with the M1/M2 on the trot, but it would be better than no AAA system at the front line.

-

[Vespers War]

Do you know if the M48 chassis (or M60) could have supported the Gepard turret? I can see the Pentagon making a deal to produce said turret here in the states and fit it to an all-American MBT chassis. The resulting SPAAG wouldn't quite be able to keep up with the M1/M2 on the trot, but it would be better than no AAA system at the front line.

-

An M48 with a slightly modified Gepard turret (different radar and computer) was Raytheon's proposal for the DIVAD competition that gave us the Sgt. York.

[Raellus]

An M48 with a slightly modified Gepard turret (different radar and computer) was Raytheon's proposal for the DIVAD competition that gave us the Sgt. York.

Interesting. Any idea why it was rejected (or why the Sgt. York got further along in the process)?

-

[shrike6]

An M48 with a slightly modified Gepard turret (different radar and computer) was Raytheon's proposal for the DIVAD competition that gave us the Sgt. York.

I had some articles I found on the DIVAD competition a while back. Ill see if I cant dig em up and post them.

[Ursus Maior]

May I say that I never actually understood the M247 Sergeant York? I mean, the US was already well underway with the M1 Abrams and the M2 Bradley, two of the most modern and best pieces of hardware at the turn of the decade into the 80s. And then they devise something so ugly, patched together and insanely ad-hoc like the M247 and cannot even make it work?

I mean, look at that thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York): The chassis of the Gepard was not new, it's based on the Leopard 1, but the M247 is based on the M48 and the turret is so boxy that it looks like a WW2 tank missing a couple of rivets.

There were good contenders, Raytheon's Dutch Gepard turret could have been mated with an M48 chassis, General Dynamics mated the 35 mm Oerlion guns used by the Gepard with CIWS systems using what looks like a M48 chassis as well. And finally General Electric wanted to use the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger. Probably an outlier solution, unless T-72s were known to grow wings.

[mpipes]

My understanding that a major contributing factor toward cancelling the M247 was the M48 hull. It was too slow. So any viable alternate solution needed a Abrams or Bradley hull.

The truth of the matter is that the US has not really put any priority on unit level AA. The Army seemingly has decided on primarily relying the USAF and Patriot SAM and I guess the Stinger MANPADS. Sooner or later, the US military is going to pay a hefty price by ignoring tactical, unit level air defense.

[Vespers War]

My understanding that a major contributing factor toward cancelling the M247 was the M48 hull. It was too slow. So any viable alternate solution needed a Abrams or Bradley hull.

The truth of the matter is that the US has not really put any priority on unit level AA. The Army seemingly has decided on primarily relying the USAF and Patriot SAM and I guess the Stinger MANPADS. Sooner or later, the US military is going to pay a hefty price by ignoring tactical, unit level air defense.

All of the DIVAD entrants were based on the M48 hull (it was a proposal requirement), so that might have been a problem regardless of who won. I say might because I'm not sure the other entrants added as much weight as the M247 did (17 tons heavier than a normal M48). The Gepard's turret only adds 5 tonnes to a Leopard 1, and the driver trainer version of the Leopard 1 uses an 8.5 tonne weight to compensate for the lack of a turret. I don't know for sure what the M48's turret weight was, but I'm guessing around 3 tons since I've seen claims the M247 turret was 20 tons and it added 17 tons to the vehicle's weight. If the Gepard turret was 13.5 tonnes, that would make it approximately 15 tons, so it would add 12 tons to vehicle weight. It's certainly not a lightweight, but shaving 5 tons off the mass the M48's expected to haul around should help at least somewhat with the speed issue.

However, the M247 had plenty of other problems:
Electronics failures if it was wet
Hydraulic leaks if it was cold
Radar tracking degraded if it was warm
Too slow to engage (10-11s against hovering helicopters, 11-19s against moving targets, when the requirement was to engage within 8s)
Turret too slow to track fast targets
Lack of radar discrimination against ground clutter (most famously locking onto a latrine fan because the moving blades distracted it)
At high angles the gun barrels blocked the radar
Easily jammed
Gun range was half the range of the missiles carried by the helicopters it was supposed to engage


The range issue isn't really the design's fault, it's a failure of the requester to anticipate future technologies, but the development of longer-ranged anti-tank helicopter missiles meant that even if development had gone perfectly the utility of the design would have plummeted. It would still be useful against anything that blundered into its range, but the vehicles it was supposed to protect (not to mention the M247 itself) could be destroyed by a helicopter from well outside its own engagement range if it spotted them first. That range issue was why the Army shifted to missile-based AA for its next attempt at a fill-in-the-gap air defense vehicle (which turned out to be ADATS).

[CDAT]

All of the DIVAD entrants were based on the M48 hull (it was a proposal requirement), so that might have been a problem regardless of who won. I say might because I'm not sure the other entrants added as much weight as the M247 did (17 tons heavier than a normal M48). The Gepard's turret only adds 5 tonnes to a Leopard 1, and the driver trainer version of the Leopard 1 uses an 8.5 tonne weight to compensate for the lack of a turret. I don't know for sure what the M48's turret weight was, but I'm guessing around 3 tons since I've seen claims the M247 turret was 20 tons and it added 17 tons to the vehicle's weight. If the Gepard turret was 13.5 tonnes, that would make it approximately 15 tons, so it would add 12 tons to vehicle weight. It's certainly not a lightweight, but shaving 5 tons off the mass the M48's expected to haul around should help at least somewhat with the speed issue.

However, the M247 had plenty of other problems:
Electronics failures if it was wet
Hydraulic leaks if it was cold
Radar tracking degraded if it was warm
Too slow to engage (10-11s against hovering helicopters, 11-19s against moving targets, when the requirement was to engage within 8s)
Turret too slow to track fast targets
Lack of radar discrimination against ground clutter (most famously locking onto a latrine fan because the moving blades distracted it)
At high angles the gun barrels blocked the radar
Easily jammed
Gun range was half the range of the missiles carried by the helicopters it was supposed to engage


The range issue isn't really the design's fault, it's a failure of the requester to anticipate future technologies, but the development of longer-ranged anti-tank helicopter missiles meant that even if development had gone perfectly the utility of the design would have plummeted. It would still be useful against anything that blundered into its range, but the vehicles it was supposed to protect (not to mention the M247 itself) could be destroyed by a helicopter from well outside its own engagement range if it spotted them first. That range issue was why the Army shifted to missile-based AA for its next attempt at a fill-in-the-gap air defense vehicle (which turned out to be ADATS).

I do not remember where I found it, and will have to see if I can find it again, but I found an article written by a USAF pilot who was part of the testing of the SGt York. Not saying that it did not have issues (lots and lots of them), but from his prospective it worked, every time he tired to "attack" it shot him down, if I remember right it was 100% effective in the tests that he was part of. Could they have ever made it really work? I do not think so, as to much was stacked against it from the get go, but in a TW2000 type world I could see maybe making some and saying what the heck it is better than nothing.

[Vespers War]

I do not remember where I found it, and will have to see if I can find it again, but I found an article written by a USAF pilot who was part of the testing of the SGt York. Not saying that it did not have issues (lots and lots of them), but from his prospective it worked, every time he tired to "attack" it shot him down, if I remember right it was 100% effective in the tests that he was part of. Could they have ever made it really work? I do not think so, as to much was stacked against it from the get go, but in a TW2000 type world I could see maybe making some and saying what the heck it is better than nothing.

I'm pretty sure that was discussed in a previous thread, and I still hold the opinion that needing to hang four radar reflectors on a drone so the M247 could see it (as documented in reports on its shortcomings) suggests that either the pilot had extraordinarily bad luck in dealing with it, it had wildly variable performance, or the F-16 radar they kitbashed onto the M48 chassis was good at picking up high and fast aerial targets and sucked at NOE/pop-up target acquisition.

[madmikechoi]

The first was a self-contained module like the CROWS (common remotely operated weapon system) with a millimeter wave radar and an optical tracker paired to a GAU 19 50 Caliber gatling gun and TWO 4-round Stinger Missile modules. It had 2k rounds on the mount and was designed as a swarm drone defense system with a secondary ground attack capability. The unit would be mounted to either a Hummer or a JLTV with the crew firing the mount remotely from inside the uparmored vehicle. Unit weight was listed as around 2 metric tons fully armed with remote fire control station. This is only slightly heavier than a Navy MK38 25mm gun mount.

I think this might be the Hummvee Avenger replacement since the Hummvee is on its way out as a frontline tactical platform. Other than being on the newer vehicle w/ updated comms I'm not so sure what real advantages mounting a Stinger pod on a CROWs would bring. Maybe newer/better optics?



The other unit (fully experimental) caught my eye because it would fill the gap between the PATRIOT and SHORAD. The proposal was an M109 chasiss fitted with a tall turret containing an AESA radar, IR Tracker, IR optical sensor and Laser ranger/Designator. The weapon system consisted of either a 3 or 4 round box launcher trainable in elevation on either side of the turret for Rolling Airframe Missiles AND a center-mounted 57mm MK110 Cannon (with a pretty long barrel). The canon was equipped with a dual feeding mechanism on either side of the cannon containing 10 rounds in a vertically feed hopper and ejected its spent casings forward over the barrel and towards the right of the hull deck (to avoid the driver). 40 additional rounds would be stored in the turret bustle for 60 rounds on the mount. The listed Crew is driver, gunner, commander, and two loaders for the 57mm (one on either side of the cannon). I don't know if any more RAM Missiles were carried. The radar folded down for transport just like most modern SPAAGs can do. It looked about as tall as an M109A6 with an equally large turret and turret bustle (the back of the turret where ammo is stored). The drawing had access doors on the back of the turret (presumably to speed up reloading the ammo). Effective engagement range was touted as 10km with a 6km slant range for the cannon. The IR Optical tracking allows for NOE aircraft engagement and operations in a radar-denied environment. IDK if any actual prototypes are running around yet but the Marines new hybrid LAV turret's Stinger weapons mount looks suspiciously like the SHORAD mount's box launchers.

That's less of SHORADS and more like a corps level ADA battalion paired w/ Hawks, Patriots, ground based AMRRAAMs to provide in close in/lower altitude coverage against leakers and low flying aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. And there are plenty of towed AA gun systems w/ accompanying fire control systems that can be made to work with missiles and if they can't be integrated at brigade level and below then the guns can do their own thing of shooting anything down that missiles cannot reach provided one is willing to sacrifice a certain amount of friendly a/c and the occasional casualty from rounds landing on peoples' heads :D

Which brings us back to this. Remember, the US Roland system was supposed to be a corps based asset and the guns and MANPADs were divisional, The problem was US Roland was axed at only 24 or 25 launchers plus developmental systems and several hundred rounds (including developmental, proof of concept, engineering/demo and/or prototypes). It got to the point where the US paid Britain and the Luftwaffe to raise more troops for the RAF Regiment and Flugabwehtraketentruppen or more accurately the Rapier and Roland launchers and rounds to provide coverage of USAF bases in England and Germoney.

Mad Mikec

[madmikechoi]

However, the M247 had plenty of other problems:
Electronics failures if it was wet
Hydraulic leaks if it was cold
Radar tracking degraded if it was warm
Too slow to engage (10-11s against hovering helicopters, 11-19s against moving targets, when the requirement was to engage within 8s)
Turret too slow to track fast targets

Again, the problem was the DIVADS was still at the developmental stage and the solution to get Captain Insane-o slew to cue, elevation and traverse, whiplash speeds was to replace the turret hydraulics w/ 5000 psi systems from aircraft. Of course then you're going to have to engineer the hydraulics to be field serviceable- doable. And then a ten or so years later people would develop some really cray cray brushless type drive motors.

Also note the APG-66 used by DIVADS was air cooled, again which was a first for a fighter which previous used liquid cooled often some sort CFC refrigerant pumped into a heat exchanger. W/ software and hardware hacks both the rotating bar and illuminator would have matured into something useable or at least everybody cognizant of limitations


The range issue isn't really the design's fault, it's a failure of the requester to anticipate future technologies, but the development of longer-ranged anti-tank helicopter missiles meant that even if development had gone perfectly the utility of the design would have plummeted. It would still be useful against anything that blundered into its range, but the vehicles it was supposed to protect (not to mention the M247 itself) could be destroyed by a helicopter from well outside its own engagement range if it spotted them first. That range issue was why the Army shifted to missile-based AA for its next attempt at a fill-in-the-gap air defense vehicle (which turned out to be ADATS).

And that's the thing ADA as a branch not only ignored it own mantras but forgot about them. Gus and missiles are complementary and when you cancel one system (Roland) that was supposed to work w/ another DIVADS/Sgt York you aren't going to get coverage, engagement speeds, mobility, and/or number of systems per battalion.

Twilight 2k is about or should be about armies having both high and low tech systems at all levels because this was it. Nuclear war where a significant portion of homo sapiens was reduced to radioactive ash

Mad Mikec

[swaghauler]

I think this might be the Hummvee Avenger replacement since the Hummvee is on its way out as a frontline tactical platform. Other than being on the newer vehicle w/ updated comms I'm not so sure what real advantages mounting a Stinger pod on a CROWs would bring. Maybe newer/better optics?




That's less of SHORADS and more like a corps level ADA battalion paired w/ Hawks, Patriots, ground based AMRRAAMs to provide in close in/lower altitude coverage against leakers and low flying aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. And there are plenty of towed AA gun systems w/ accompanying fire control systems that can be made to work with missiles and if they can't be integrated at brigade level and below then the guns can do their own thing of shooting anything down that missiles cannot reach provided one is willing to sacrifice a certain amount of friendly a/c and the occasional casualty from rounds landing on peoples' heads :D

Which brings us back to this. Remember, the US Roland system was supposed to be a corps based asset and the guns and MANPADs were divisional, The problem was US Roland was axed at only 24 or 25 launchers plus developmental systems and several hundred rounds (including developmental, proof of concept, engineering/demo and/or prototypes). It got to the point where the US paid Britain and the Luftwaffe to raise more troops for the RAF Regiment and Flugabwehtraketentruppen or more accurately the Rapier and Roland launchers and rounds to provide coverage of USAF bases in England and Germoney.

Mad Mikec

Both of these are being fielded to the Company and Battalion level and are designed to combat DRONES and LOITERING MUNITIONS. I think the Army is watching both the Russian and Israeli loitering munitions being used in Syria. In addition, Iran has had a lot of success with drone strikes against Saudi Arabia. That is why they are testing these.

The new SHORAD has millimeter wave radar, an IRST sight, and 3-barreled GAU 19 .50 caliber gatling gun with a 2000 round ROF. It is clearly designed to shoot a lot of rounds at fast moving targets.

The new M109 hulled ADA only has a range of 10km for it's weapons systems. The typical aircraft-launched AT missile (like a Maverick) can hit from up to 25km away. It is clearly being considered for a "CLOSE PROTECTION" role for armored vehicles or other assets and is stated as being for drone suppression.

I believe the SLAMRAAM is for medium range engagements.

[Hybris]

WED, JUL 01, 1998 10:23 CET
Bofors Weapon Systems, a Celsius Group business unit, has received an order from the Swedish Materiel Administration (FMV) for TriKA the new air defence system destined for the Swedish Coastal Artillery. The TriKA fire unit, a variant of Tridon, is modular, vehicle mounted and is based on existing 40 mm guns with the new electric laying system and integrated fire control. The system is intended for protecting mobile combat units in the battle zone. As TriKA is modular future upgrading can be easily carried out. According to Magnus Ingesson, president of Bofors Weapon Systems, the order is important as it forms a part of the ongoing 40 mm air defence gun upgrading programme. It can also lead to other countries becoming interested in the concept as the Bofors 40 mm gun is to be found in many countries throughout the world.


TRIDON
The TRIDON Air Defence Gun System is a 40 mm VSHORAD development concept in several configurations. TRIDON can also be a cost-effective upgrading alternative and has been configured to meet and destroy the air threat wherever it appears. It is a high fire-power, highly mobile autonomous 40 mm gun system mounted on a 6x6 all-terrain chassis. The system concept gives short reaction time, high firing endurance and deployment in less than 60 seconds.
Everyting required to combat the enemy, from command and control to ammunition and spares is carried on mount. And with Bofors 40 mm 3P ammunition it can take on almost any threat and defeat lightly armoured vehicles, surface targets, concealed troops and attack helicopers. For the Swedich costal defence forces a version called TriKA is under development. A prototype with optronic fire control system was tested during 1998 and was fitted with IR-search system for trial during 1999.

[Hybris]

Swedish Army operates around 30 Lvkv 90 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns



Country of origin Sweden
Entered service Mid 1990s
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 22.8 t
Length (gun forward) 6.55 m
Hull length 6.47 m
Width 3.17 m
Height 3.45 m
Armament
Main gun 1 x 40 mm
Machine guns 1 x 7.62 mm
Projectile weight 0.96 kg
Maximum slant range 4 km
Maximum firing range 12.5 km
Rate of fire 300 rpm
Elevation range - 8 to + 50 degrees
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 240 rounds
Machine guns 500 rounds
Mobility
Engine SAAB-Scania DS14 diesel
Engine power 550 hp
Maximum road speed 70 km/h
Range 320 km
Maneuverability
Gradient 60%
Side slope 30%
Vertical step 1.2 m
Trench 2.9 m
Fording ~ 1.2 m
Fording (with preparation) Amphibious


The Luftvärnskanonvagn 90 or LvKv 90 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun was developed in early 90s. This vehicle is also referred as the CV 9040 AA. Around 30 of these vehicles are in service with the Swedish Army.

The LvKv 90 is armed with the Bofors L70B 40 mm gun. This gun is fed from box-shaped magazines, containing 24 rounds each. Magazine is reloaded manually within 20 seconds. The LvKv 90 fires programmable proximity fused fragmentation rounds against air targets and HE-FRAG and AP rounds against ground targets. Maximum effective range against air targets is 4 km.

Secondary armament consists of coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun. It is used for self-defense against enemy infantry.

The LvKv 90 is fitted with modern fire control system. Vehicle radar has maximum detection range of 14 km. The LvKv has a friend-or-foe identification system and can track up to 6 targets simultaneously.

Front armor of the LvKv 90 provides protection against armor-piercing rounds fired from small caliber cannons. All-round protection is against small arms fire and artillery shell splinters. Vehicle is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems.

The LvKv 90 is based on the CV 90 IFV chassis. Vehicle is powered by the SAAB-Scania DS14 diesel engine, developing 550 horsepower. The LvKv 90 is fully amphibious after fitting a floatation kit. On water it is propelled by its tracks.



Variants



LvKv 90 TD, technology demonstrator to prepare for upgrades to the existing fleet. It has a number of improvements and is capable of firing on the move.

LvKv 90 C, uparmored variant, intended for international peacekeeping operations.

[Ursus Maior]

The thing with SHORAD, and even more so with VSHORAD, is that you want similar levels of mobility and protection than the maneuver element you are guarding against airborne threats. That is why the Bundeswehr had Gepard SPAAGs and Roland mobile SAM-launchers on armored chassis for their brigades, divisions and corps, but the Luftwaffe used Roland on MAN 8×8 trucks for the protection of air-bases.

Puttin a gun on a truck is not the same, even if said truck is somewhat armored and has gut mobility cross-country. The levels of protection and mobility will always be different and that is a problem for near-peer engagements, since your SPAAGs and SHORAD SAMs will be within striking distance of direct fire by the enemy. That is even more true today than it was during the later Cold War: back then, tank guns and ATGMs reached out 3-5 km beyond the forward line of enemy troops (FLET); or forward edge of battle area (FEBA), respectively, depending upon you perspective. Back then, battlefield ground-surveillance radars had a range of 20 km, today that's a distance easily overcome by beyond-line-of-sight missiles like Spike NLOS (quad-mountedable on pick-up trucks).

With the ever increasing threat by small to medium-sized drones, non-hardened (V)SHORAD-solutions are simply not going to survive long enough. Drone can now (or in the very near future) use swarm attacks to saturate SPAAGs or make them give away their positions for long-range artillery or NLOS ATAGMs to strike them from afar. A guntruck with a radar mounted is simply not going to cut it against near-peer opponents, especially since these have invested highly into drones.