Are gun-based air-defense systems still useful?

>>31827270
Yes, as long as they're supplemented by longer range missiles.

maybe

they are 100% cool as hell

>>31827270
Very good at Riot Suppression and general Crowd Control.

File: SA-3_EP_2006.jpg (811KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2560x1920px

>>31827296

So no.

Why not just have missile-based air-defense systems?

>>31827270
As an economical method of dealing with small UAS.

>>31827330
>missiles all used
>enemy can now send in a helicopter to splat everything in the area because you didn't bring AA with a gun

It's a preventative more than anything.
The fact that it's not being used means it's working.

>>31827330

Better for CRAM, more versitile, doesnt have to waste a 100 000 dollar missile on shooting down Jamals UAV.

>>31827323
This. Who can forget using the Flak guns in BF1942 to shred passing jeeps?

File: lvkv_90.jpg (28KB, 524x349px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 524x349px

Bofors gun will never die.

File: aNZReAQ.jpg (142KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1024x768px

>>31827376
This x1000

>tfw no 37mm gattling
A-10 aint got shit.

>>31827408
This image is the best response to zombiefags.

>>31827270

They are getting more useful considering the development of combat drones like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Harop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghL_3puADks

Combat drones saw some action in the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict earlier in the year.
They also can be used as decent ground support if your heavier armor needs better infantry protection.

File: 1472509028588.jpg (169KB, 1200x677px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x677px

>>31827330
Because you still need gun based AA? I said supplement, not replace.
You have long range AA covering everything, followed by medium range AA covering areas within and on the outskirts of the long range AA's range, then lastly you have gun based CIWS to protect the missile based AA.
Do you even layered defense?

File: 1470683061414.jpg (90KB, 476x476px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 476x476px

>>31827446
>the drone itself is the main munition.
The future of warfare is one side sending out a swarm of kamikaze drones and the other side trying to shoot them all down.

Depends

Do you have old shitty SPAAG's simply because you can't afford anything good? Then its useless.

Are you buying your new SPAAG's because they can do basically everything and are more accurate than missiles? Different story.

>>31827446
israel selling weapons to muslim terrorists huh

File: Type 87.jpg (341KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1000x665px

>>31827529
>are more accurate than missiles?

Even modern SPAAG's aren't going to be hitting jets above 5,000ft

>>31827570
I don't see why that would be so
Since they had guns that could reach 60,000 feet in ww2.

>>31827570
>effective range is 4,000 meters. (13,123ft)
>having a documented hit percentage of 52.44%
Right.

>>31827632
Shell flight time. The target would be able to evade it. Bomber formations in WW2 just didnt do that.

>>31827529
SPAAGs are pretty much only useful against rotary and prop aircraft. Grey area for close-attack aircraft (which would be stupid on their part to engage).

At this point it's mostly on doctrine. Since soviets stress area denial, with SPAAGs up front and intercovered fire lanes of longer-ranged shit in the back (I'm too drunk to use technical terms), then it's good.


Also the improvised role vs infantry and soft targets.

>>31827773
If you don't know you are being fired upon, you obviously won't be evading

Even then that turns it into a question of volume of fire.

I think SPAAG's are a totally viable way of doing air defense.

File: gt.jpg (26KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x360px

>>31827408

kinda reminds me of this thing

>>31827799
I guess, but if the gun is radar guided the aircrafts RWR would go off and it would start taking evasive manouvers.

Im not debating low caliber SPAAGs, they are great.

But to reach 60 000 ft you would need something like a 5 in gun. And if you want a optically guided 5 inch gun they that is what existed during ww2, and there is a reason they dont exist today.

>>31827810
It sure does. Man I miss that game.

>>31827527
Can you imagine sitting there firing that fucker without earpro. Your inner and middle ears would be mush after an engagement

In the modern day, SPAAGs are mainly useful to do the following things:

1) protect high value point targets from cruise missiles and PGMs (especially air defense; every Russian S-300 and S-400 battery is itself defended by Pantsir)

2) Kill drones and helicopters on the battlefield

They are also quite useful if you have a defined area that you need to defend against airborne attack. It's pretty fucking hard to land a bunch of helicopters or do a paradrop from large slow transport aircraft if there's a bunch of SPAAGs on the ground. You could use MANPADS and longer-range SAMs for this purpose but those are more expensive and aren't additionally useful as a makeshit IFV. This isn't something that every country needs but it is useful in some situations, like defending against amphibious airborne landings. It's not a coincidence that Taiwan and Japan both operate SPAAGs and/or modern AAA, for instance.

>>31827632
that's AAA
the extra A is for artillery, meaning in the 75-127mm range

missiles for jets

spaags for helis, drones and anything that can be taken out with moar dakka

>>31827270
Very much so!

>>31827270
They prevent you from flying low which makes you all the more vulnerable to missiles

>>31827527
Could them skinny asians girls trun the hand crank fast enough to keep up with today's jets?

>>31830211
SPAAGs are for killing helos not jets

>superior for the purposes of CIWS
>significantly faster response times when compared to missiles
>dual purpose, as proven in afghanistan, iraq, and syria
>lower operational and maintenance costs whilst still being effective against a wide spread of targets
>future-proof technology that will be necessary for most smaller nations to combat drones in the coming decades

The core of your ADN should always be hyper capable missiles, but gun based systems still have their place and most likely always will. It's like COIN airframes; make them cheap and cheerful and keep them mothballed because you're always going to want them to hand.

>>31827330
>why not just get rid of artillery
ever consider if a thing gets too close launching a missile is risky to yourself?
artillery is pretty awesome i doubt war on a scale like ww2 could produce enough missiles to stop planes there were a staggering number of them and produced and lost, less effective in some ways doesnt mean ineffective
maybe im just biased tho cause i've had a hard on for artillery pieces lately

File: draco.jpg (94KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x377px

>>31827570
>5000 feet
pic related has a range of 20'000/25'000 feet and guided munition

>>31827858
large caliber SPAAG like >>31830488
use guided munitions, you can't just evade them

>>31827376
man, sniping with the bofors was amazing once you got used to the slight sight offset

>>31830497
>guided munition

Proximity fuse isn't guided munition

SPAAG is useful to protect tanks againts anti tank helo and CAS aircraft. Thy're not meant to be deployed independently.

SPAAG has shorter response time than SAM and unless the vehicle is left stationary, anti-radiation missile (especially the hi-speed type like HARM) won't have much effect against them

>>31827330
Missiles have minimum range (Igla, for example, has minimum range of abouy 300 yards). any closer and the missile is ineffective

File: ZduYKh.gif (289KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 320x180px

phalanx ciws trump card... did some math once and figured that each bullet was only about 40 ft apart in the air. also that a 3 second burst cost around 3000$ in bullets alone, and fired like 40 lbs of bullets.... soo thats how it can shoot mortar fire out of the sky...

Only if you're dealing with shitty outdated aircraft like the Frogfoot or A10.

sure
against slow turboprop garbage like the super tucano or as a ciws type system against missiles

>>31830544
DART projectiles have CLOS guidance systems

File: are you trying to bait me private.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>31830659

>>31830670
>against slow turboprop garbage like the super tucano

You mean like the thousands of drones that the USA operates?

AAA is good against helicopters, drones and low flying aircraft.

Given how popular such systems are and drones growing popularity SPAAGs certainly remain useful.

The US is currently pretty desperate for a SPAAG system due to the observed prevalence of drones in Ukraine. Currently, the smallest effective weapons system is the stinger, and they arent cheap and dont work on small electric drone, so they've been looking to countries like Romania who have bought a shit load of Flakpanzer Gepards for Anti Drone defence in Europe. Lemme see if I can find the article, but SPAAG systems are pretty sought after right now

Making a spaag in this day and age is pretty much useless unless you want a limited anti-helicopter role.

Chinks & slavs are just wasting their money some more so troops on the ground can feel safer.

>>31830767
Everyone is forgetting the ubiquity and threat from drones, especially electric engined drones that a SAM cannot lock onto, yet can be out of the effective range of a machinegun. A radar guided SPAAG like the Flakpanzer Gepard, ZSU-23-4 Shilka, Tunguska or Marksman are extremely useful and relevant on todays battlefield

>>31830835
It's not just the threat of armed UAVs, but small UAVs with superb camera for observing artillery fire. In Ukraine, both sides use drones for this with great effect. The psychological effect alone is quite severe, considering the only way to spot some of these drones is by sight, as they're so quiet, obviously at night or with low cloud you aint seeing shit and a radar aimed SPAAG would be a hell of a thing to have

>>31827270
Extremely useful.

We just won't have a large enough war for them to be utilized.

Large caliber gun based AAA and SPAA would be just one more cog needed to defend places.

>>31830843
In a DHS study $5k of suicide drones destroyed an armoured convoy.

>>31827270
Gun based AA systems are as Point Defense Anti Aircraft systems, whereas missile based platforms are known as Area Defense Anti Aircraft systems.

Missile systems are great, but they are still expensive with a single projectile (usually per engagement) that has the possibility of countermeasures and/or maneuvers. Gun based systems perform better at closer ranges and are quicker to deal with immediate "point" engagements. This is the concept behind the Vulcan/MIM-72 Chaparral combinations.

File: 1476502868716.jpg (79KB, 800x526px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 800x526px

>>31827270
>>31830843
>>31830835
We have the Avenger with the M3P 50cal for drones and RW. Currently they are deployed in the only two places it makes sense to have them, Korea and Washington DC. Best Korea is constantly flying drones over the DMZ to get target data for their artillery while there is always the threat of a drone or hijacked airplane strike by terrorists on the capital.

If drones ever become too prevalent, theyll just create more SHORAD batteries, maybe even bring back Linebackers. Right now the ADA world is much more concerned with TBMs, IBMs and CRAM.

File: 2D5591BF00000578-0-image-a-1_1444669601859.jpg (49KB, 634x376px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 634x376px

>>31827270
Yeah.

Particularly in the role of taking out low flying UAVs. We may even see a return to larger calibers to ensure enough shrapnel is sprayed in order to take things down while doubling as a CRAM system. It'll be interesting to see how things evolve once HEL starts proliferating.

>>31827364
> missiles can't kill helicopters

What the fuck is this nonsense?

>>31830211
Imagine the grip/wrist/arm strength they'd have. A handjob would probably pull your cock right off.

>>31831236
Point out where in that post he is claiming that missiles cant kill helicopters.

>>31827270
Yes. Any good air defense needs to fill the sky with threats for high and low level aircraft.
A helo looking to escape detection from high level SAM's will be shredded by AAA.

>>31827323
but anon, i wanted to make that post ;(

>>31831195
>M3P 50cal
Is the 50cal aimed by optical sight or does it have radar? Cause if it's just optical, I don't see it being worth much against many electric drones, or at night, or if its moving at any sort of speed. Again, the stinger is expensive and can't lock on without strong heat contrast. There's definitely a large gap in US SHORAD

>>31827270

Yes they are, in War Thunder : Ground Forces

>>31827446
Wasn't one of those shot down by a shepherd with a shotgun? ( I think the guy was from Armenian side)

In short:

(1) guns are effective anti-air weapons at short and especially very short ranges (ShoRAD, VShoRAD)

(2) rule of thumb: 20 mm goes about 2 km, 40 mm goes about 3 km, 76 mm with special munitions goes to 6 km EFFECTIVE ranges against manoeuvring targets

(3) guns can use lower cost munitions than (rocket) missiles. This enables -particularly for "dumb" HE shells with electronic time or RF proximity fuze - an affordable interception of cheap drones and even rockets, mortar bombs and artillery shells (overlap of air defence with C-RAM).

(4) Though, if you want to protect an army battalion against strike fighter and attack helicopter attacks despite SEAD efforts I would recommend

RBS-70NG with Bolide missile
(laser beamrider guidance, almost immune to countermeasures)
+
Rheinmetall FIRST infrared air search device
+
RAFAEL Helispot infrasound non-line of sight helicopter warning device

This would counter the attack helicopters very well and push strike fighters to at least 15,000 ft altitude from which they are rather dependent on guided munitions for efficient ground attacks (= degradation of air power effectiveness, not full protection).

>>31831328
Actually, electro-optical or infrared sensor tracking of target delivers two dimensional (2D direction) knowledge about the target, which laser rangefinder delivers the third dimension 8rnage). Apply this 3D sensing over time and you have 4D info

This 4D info is actually going to be more precise than you would have it with a single radar because radars aren't wideband and thus use a frequency band that's a compromise between accurate rangefinding and accurate angular resolution.

12.7 mm is still fairly pointless past 1 km diagonal range, though. It's more of a ground self-defence weapon, not even very effective against helicopters.

>>31827681
Source seriously required.
And no, the ZSU-57-2 is not a valid listing

>>31827270
Yes, especially against helicopters and UAVs.

>>31831603
The effective range of 35 mm got extended with the FAPDS munition due to its much higher muzzle velocity.

You won't hit a 5 g manoeuvring target at such an "effective range", hence my rules of thumbs' lower effective ranges (which were meant for full calibre munitions anyway).

>>31827483
Those are called missiles, anon.

>>31830613
The new 2hu looks great.

>>31830597
>SPAAG has shorter response time than SAM and unless the vehicle is left stationary, anti-radiation missile (especially the hi-speed type like HARM) won't have much effect against them

There's a new generation of ARM under development that adds another sensor to take care of such issues.
Kh-58UShK: additional imaging infrared sensor in latest (unveiled 2015) version
AGM-88E: additional millimetre wavelength radar

>>31827330
Is that insignia a meme, I almost believe that I can buy it at TARGET.

we need to bring back large caliber SPAAG
like 120mm SPAAG based on abrams chassis

Perhaps with a light gas gun for higher muzzle velocity

>>31827446
I predicted this a year or two ago

we're going to see drones as part of a regular infantry kit

I forsee them being used to carry poison gass inside buildings and tunnels, to network in a lattice to cluster bomb areas, and to attack tanks external equipment
to destroy IED's, and perhaps even to protect tanks from smart munitions

despite costing vastly more than dumb munitions, the improved accuracy and utility will quickly make them dominant

>>31831968
>we need to bring back large caliber SPAAG

What?

NO

>>31831603
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system

File: 1458538032585.png (2MB, 1177x783px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1177x783px

>>31832222
>poison gass
Not only against the geneva convention, but also less effective than just blowing up.
Might be pretty funny though.

>yfw someone duct tapes a phosphorous grenade to a drone and flies it around the enemy position
>drone captures the "oh shit" faces of everyone there