US Army AAA in T2K

[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Per Wikipedia, the last VADS were withdrawn from service by 1994 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_V...nd_replacement).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 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]

Originally Posted by unipus

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...918287360?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/up...s_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[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.

-

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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

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

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by madmikechoi

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

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.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by 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.

-

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:
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.