Are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns still relevant? Could say

>Are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns still relevant?
Yes, they are a (relatively) cheap mobile way to deter aircraft

>Could say the Tunguska bring down a united states jet?
If it were stupid enough to go for a leisurely strafing run, sure.

Also it has SAMs too, so there's that.

>If not then what is used to bring down aircraft?
The missiles.
You must understand that the purpose of SPAAGs was never to sweep the skies clear of enemy aircraft, but rather to keep them from being able to operate freely, like the US has been doing on the sandpeople.

an SPAAG is a deadly threat to helicopters of all sorts. Attack helicopters could wreak merry hell on armored forces otherwise. Similarly, attack aircraft like the A-10 will be forced to operate at much higher altitude, limiting it to lobbing a couple of air to ground missiles or glide bombs or whatever from a safe standoff distance. While the US has so many fucking aircraft that it can still pound the shit out of anyone's military while working like that, nobody else can. And the pounding that the various air forces of the US can dish out while playing things safe is a tiny fraction of what they could do if they were given the all clear to go nuts with no fear of retaliatory fire.

it's like saying landmines are shit because you can just walk around them. But if you're walking around them, the land mine is doing it's job. It's not there to blow up stupid people, it's there to get reasonable people to either take the long way around, or spend the time it takes to clear their way through. The effectiveness of a given weapon's system isn't just measured by it's K/D ratio.

They are good against anything rotary, but to take down a jet, either SAM or another jet can take it down

>>32411993
>>32411990

They aren't a good option to fight attack helicopters that can use ground cover to engage them with guided missiles without exposing themselves to return fire.

>>32412024

Better than just letting it do whatever the fuck it wants.

Now it has to advance ridge by ridge, checking carefully for your SPAAGS, instead of flying in like hot shit blasting niggas left and right.

>>32412024
"ground cover" go to Kansas with them then

It's a SAM first SPAAG second desu
And SPAAGS are still very useful for light anti aircraft cover especially in mountainous regions where a BUK or a TOR could not give reliable coverage
The Russian/European doctrine for SPAAG and the American one is fairly interesting in there differences

>>32412109
Yeah, and SPAAG aren't very useful on the 70% of the earth's surface covered in water.

>>32412338
>european doctrine
>european doctrine
>european doctrine
What makes you think this is a thing and why would you lump it with Russian doctrine like that?

>>32413480
Because Moscow is in europe, dildo.

>>32412338
tangentially related, I remember reading that troops preferred having SPAAGs in their convoys over BMPs because only the SPAAGs had the elevation to shoot at the Taliban up the horrific slopes of Afghanistan. Quad-mounted DShKas aren't a bad support weapon either.

>>32413490
There are dozens of other european capitals that are not Moscow, you know.

File: A10 790181 wheels up crash KKMC.jpg (62KB, 640x447px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x447px

>>32411661
SPAAGs hold this weird niche where, when deployed right, they won't really be used at all. SPAAGs, MANPADS, and other short ranged air defense systems offer operators a means of dispersing air defenses across their forces on platforms less susceptible to SEAD practices than your traditional long-ranged SAMs. They tend to be very limited in their range (usually an effective range of only a couple of miles and ceiling of about 15,000 ft), but because they're so tricky to disable and easy to disperse, the threat of them can be used to deny low-level airspace to the enemy.

A good example of this was demonstrated in the Gulf War. On the opening night of the air war, SPAAGs and regular AA guns took a heavy toll on low-flying Coalition Tornados making strikes on airfields, inflicting on those aircraft some of the heaviest air losses of the war. And, while the Iraqi IADS was almost completely dismantled by the time the ground war began, SPAAGs and other low-level defenses continued to operate surprisingly well even as the Iraqi Army fell apart. You had one instance where A-10s were cleared to do their traditional "low and slow" attacks on a retreating Republican Guard unit, only to be withdrawn very quickly after multiple A-10s were downed by gunfire and MANPADS and many more were damaged.

>>32413610
Not to mention the disaster that is the battle of Karbala in 2003

>31 Apaches deployed
>2 down
>the remaining sustained moderate to heavy damage that a number of them had to be written off
>only 2 planes cleared off for next missions

The only thing iraq had at that point were ZSU guns and S60

>>32411661
Yes?
>What is layered AD?
Do you think these things would just roll around without proper coverage?

>>32411661
>Are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns still relevant?
No, some of the worlds leading militaries use them just for the fuck of it

>>32413480
All European countries go for this doctrine. Only the USA have the resources to rely on air supremacy all the time.

>>32414039
>All European countries go for this doctrine.

You're a moron. As if you've even read a single European doctrine paper.

>>32411661
>Are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns still relevant?
Yes.
>Could say the Tunguska bring down a united states jet?
It could make things significantly more difficult for the jet, let's put it that way.
>If not then what is used to bring down aircraft?
Medium and long range SAMs cover altitudes that a SPAAG does not.

File: Gepard.jpg (945KB, 2560x1668px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 2560x1668px

>>32414104
All European nations had SPAAG for the whole Cold War era, and only the richer countries like the UK, France and Germany have stopped using until 2000.

>>32414182

Again, you're retarded. Just because they had SPAAGs does not mean they all share the exact same doctrine.

I'm well aware of what used in the cold war, but like you said. Requirements changed over sixteen (almost seventy now), so that's not current doctrine.

>>32413610
Iraqi Air Defenses did alot better than people realise iirc they traded aircraft on 1:1 basis

>>32414292
Generalizing European and Russian doctrines as Russian/European doctrine doesn't require them to be still in use.
>The Russian/European doctrine for SPAAG and the American one is fairly interesting in there differences
One side is going for method A and the other for method B, anon is pooling all doctrines on side A, because the common opinion in Europe is that it's better/easier to shoot down plans from the ground than out off the air.

>>32414368
>Generalizing European and Russian doctrines as Russian/European doctrine doesn't require them to be still in use.

1. Generalising is wrong because Europe isn't a country and each European nation has their own particular doctrine. You're asserting they're the same because they happen to have the same conceptual equipment, they share the exact same doctrine. This is like saying the US and Russia share the same doctrine because they both happened to have air-superiority fighters.

2. It certainly does. If equipment has been retired and hasn't been replaced for a very lengthy amount of time, you can consider it no longer doctrine.

>One side is going for method A and the other for method B, anon is pooling all doctrines on side A, because the common opinion in Europe is that it's better/easier to shoot down plans from the ground than out off the air.

You again assert that from a very limited basis. Given that SPAAGs are no longer in service, don't you think it is reasonable to assume that "common opinion" has changed?

>>32412024
>attack helicopters that can use ground cover to engage them with guided missiles without exposing themselves to return fire.
There is only one specific model of hellfire capable to provide that opportunity.

>>32411661
I'm drunk bt let me tell you some real shit here

AA doesn't work in isolation, they operate as a part of a web
they are cheap compared to aircraft; so this is still viable

surface to air missiles are advanced enough that they pose a serious risk to high altitude aircraft, and the cost of missile/aircraft is in favour of the AA

but the high altitude AA needs cover from low flying aircraft an choppers who would other wise make light work of it

this is where guided position dumb-fire AA comes into play
it protects the longer range surface to air possition

but therere is an issue,radio guided (or whatever) must be closer to the plane than the SAM, and this means it can be flanked
that means one SAM might need a lanrge number of dumb AA around it

the solution?
put the dumb AA on wheels

tungsta is worst nightmare of chopper pilots, it can drive somewhere frustrating, dig into the side of some mountain; and take out a 50m helicopter when it's only worth a quater of that

imagine if you were in any kind of aircraft you want, and the net cost of your aircraft was sitting on the ground in the form of self propelled AA

What we need is large caliber SPAAG with longer engagement ranges
And ofc it would double as an anti-tank vehicle in a real war just like what happened in WW2

It's not like a tank cannon is even very expensive, so I dnno why noone has done this

>>32415327
as the caliber increases the strain on the weapon system increases
either you lower the rate of fire (ROF) or you shorten the operating life of the parts of the weapon

the increasing the effective range of SPAAG would mean increasing the ROF and caliber, the compounding effect of mechanical strain makes either impractical, and together ludicrous

30mm, 35mm, using a larger round has diminishing returns

>>32415361
You could do a 3 round burst
Of course you wouldn't be firing a thousand rounds a minute from a 120mm cannon

>>32415387
but that's kind of the function of the weapon

the speed of a moving aircraft post jet engine means you really have to fire a spread of round to get a hit

the lag time between where your target is projected to be and where the target IS when the round reaches the correct elevation creates a huge variable

if one round hit exactly after the other and you had a stream of fire with no spread, you wouldn't hit a single airborne target

you need the combination of ROF and spread to guarantee a hit, and planes arn't meaningfully armored anymore
that's why burst fire wouldn't work

>>32415437
Large caliber munitions will be travelling much faster, and they can airburst/receive guidance

It's not about the speed of the aircraft so much as how hard its maneuvering

The necessary "spread" can be coming from multiple SPAAG's too

>>32415527
nah man

multiple spags means mltiplying the cost of the whole system

rule of thumb larger caliber rounds travel slower

speed/maneuvering is largly hte same, it quated to (possition/speed)x(maneuvarability)
basically the possible positions of an aircraft after a delay (which is when the bullet is mid-flight) is vast

large caliber airburst means you would be hitting the plane with confetti, they arn't heavily armored but shrapnel wouldn't really d the job
and the cost of firing that many airburst rounds is significant
SPAAG already have guidance, but the hang time like I said means that the plane will never be on a linear course from where it was when you opened fire

>>32413515
IIRC, the Russians ended up using SPAAGs in quantity in urban environments when they were in Chechnya in the 90s. A case study done by the Marine Corps pushed through that Chechen HK AT teams would actively engage convoys, and the Russians mitigated this by having infantry clear out the buildings along a route first, and embedding the convoys with SPAAGs to use against ground targets (the guns, not the SAMs). Apparently it worked.

>>32411661
>Are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns still relevant?

Absolutely. Just as MANPADs and not self propelled AA-guns. Those are area denial weapons as much as those are supposed to destroy enemy aircraft. Anti-aircraft weaponry denies enemy opportunity to use of or at least complicates use of low flying attack aircraft and helicopters.

File: Bmpt_REA_2009.jpg (282KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 800x533px

>>32415617

Soviets started to use SPAAG's as convoy escorts in Afghanistan in 80's due to higher gun elevation than tank can achieve.

Russians weren't alone in developing dedicated convoy escort and urban warfare tanks, but they were only country to actually get those into service at least in limited numbers, both Germans and US had similar stuff under development or being considered for development, but Cold War ended and budget cuts happened.

>>32415876
>they were only country to actually get those into service
They did not. Bmpt was sold to Kazahstan, Russian MoD is not intetested. And they've got point, 'cause next gen heavy IFV will have almost same firepower and even better protection.

>>32415925

Part you ignored.

>limited numbers

Unless that dozen Kazakhstan is the same dozen Russian Army previously had paid for, Russian army probably has dozen to dozen of those. As I said adopted in limited numbers.

>>32416421
They don't adapted any numbers of this thing.

>>32416475
>They don't adapted any numbers of this thing

Then who the hell paid for prototypes? Most of Russian defense industry is state owned.

>>32416693
>Then who the hell paid for prototypes?
Factory. It wasn't a military contract, they dropped concept in 80's.
>Most of Russian defense industry is state owned.
Yeah, but not by MoD.

>>32411661
Among other things, Tunguska is used to protect troops on the move from enemy choppers and CAS aircraft. So it is tracked to be able to keep up with tanks.

Russian AA is divided between "object AA" and "troop AA". Object AA (examples: S400, Pantsir) protects static positions or regions, and is usually wheeled. Troop AA (Tunguska, TOR, etc) protects troops and is tracked.

A tracked Pantsir is supposed to replace Tunguska, I think.

File: F-117-wreckage-2.jpg (86KB, 800x530px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x530px

Inb4 slavs down an F-35 with a tunguska or a shilka.

>>32416693
It is initiative project by UVZ. It is common thing in Russia. Like Su-47 was initiative project by Suchoi.