SPAAG General

Its cause you can't use a anti air missile against ground targets

>>31582643
They have 4 targets:
1. Helicopters, which they can be highly effective against from decent distances.
2. Low flying jets; if an A-10 fails to kill or identify a modern AAA system like the Tunguska, it's going to get shredded.
3. Missiles / bombs; some modern systems can be used like CIWS to defend systems part of an S-300 / S-400. How effective it is at that role is quite questionable however.
4. Infantry / light armoured vehicles; not much can stand up against 5000rpm of 30mm from a Tunguska.

>>31582643
Put some gyros, lasers,a radar and a good computer on large, heavy and long range machine guns and you have an automatic wave of led going were the aircraft is going to be.
How the fuck cant that not be good?

>>31582643
Crowd control. You can't mow down civilians as well with missiles.

>>31582643
>Why are anti-aircraft guns still popular when you'd think that missile-based systems would be more effective?

No, I wouldn't think that.

Why do you?

>>31582942
Not OP, but missiles are more effective in general against aircraft; not many strike fighters or bombers are going to come within range of a SPAAG's guns, let alone their effective range.

Using rocket-propelled, guided munitions vs unguided munitions against targets thousands / tens of thousands of feet away, moving near or above the speed of sound is generally more effective.

With the advent of mass UAV use they're more important than ever, at least until lasers get worked out. You can't fire a SAM at every 20 pound UAV that flies over you.

>>31583035
But SPAAGs are generally cheaper and more independent than missile-based air defenses. Unlike larger SAMs capable of hitting at medium to high altitudes, the SPAAGs are generally less vulnerable to SEAD practices because they're usually a fairly mobile self-contained system. And even if the enemy can just fly higher and avoid them, you're still accomplishing something with them by forcing the enemy to fly at medium altitudes.

The Gulf War showed that it's comparatively easy to take out the normal SAM-based IADS, but the distributed systems like SPAAGs and MANPADS are much harder to neutralize even with total air superiority.

>>31583116
Sure, but (and I honestly don't know), how many surface to air kills were attained via AAA vs SAM / MANPAD?

>>31583116
SPAAGs have the same SEAD defenses as any other AA system, radars off and mobility. While they have a mobility advantage over larger SAMs, they're still not going to have their radar operating unless necessary. Also the increasing sophistication of PGMs means that higher altitudes are less of an issue.

>>31583035

I'm going to let you in on a little secret here:

The guns are not for shooting down planes that fly too high to be hit by them. They're for shooting down things that fly close to the ground, like helicopters. Have you heard of helicopters?

>>31583245
No shit, but engagement ranges are only getting longer, especially with network centric warfare.

>>31582643
OP imagine you sit in a a10 or Su18
>get a mission to BTFO of some tanks or shit
>do all piloting n shit
>approach
a second later there is a wall of 35mm rounds coming at you quiet quickly
>cry like a little girl, stop the approch and get the fuck away from that

if they hit you its just bonus points

secondly lightly armored vehicles and especially humans dont like to get shot with 35mm shells

btw the gepard is based on a leopard 1 so the supply/maintainchain is quiet easier

>>31583271

That's what the missiles are for.

>>31582643

This is like asking "why do people carry handguns if artillery guns exist?"

Different weapons for different purposes. Guns work great for targets that are close. Missiles work great for targets that are far.

That's really all there is to it.

>>31582643
Dakka

>>31583164
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

>>31582664

Sure you can. ADATS and Tor are good examples of built in ground-attack capabilities. Pretty sure the Rapier system or Crotale-NG has the capability.

>>31583585

Tor can shoot at ground targets?

Which Tor are we talking about here?

>Pretty sure the Rapier system or Crotale-NG has the capability.

What makes you say that?

the issue is the lack of large caliber SPAAG

File: M247-sergeant-york-tn1[1].jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>31585858

>the issue is the lack of large caliber SPAAG

We can rebuild her.

>>31583694
Khinzal?

If I recall correctly, Khinzal can be illuminated for surface targets.

>>31588348
large
caliber
m8
Think an abrams that can elevate 90 degrees

File: ModNaval30-40mm[1].jpg (78KB, 567x619px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 567x619px

>>31588378

40 x 364 Bofors is a huge auto-cannon round m8.

I remember seeing a video where a Tunguska uses its missiles against an armoured ground target a long distance away.

Cannon rounds are usually cheaper than missiles and are also pretty reliable.

Plus dat BRRRT

Urban warfare.

Russian found them useful for taking out Chechen insurgents in tall apartment buildings.

Your T-90 doesn't have the elevation to cover your infantry from overhead snipers.

>>31588750
>>31588729
>>31588662
imagine being a grunt and walking by as the BRRRRT abd getting hit in the ehad by those casings... unpleasent I guess....

SPAAG is so much in project reality

File: tmp_23026-otomatic_l1894245774.jpg (72KB, 585x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 585x480px

>>31588378
Big enough?