AAA

>>33664579
Does the US even have one in service anymore?

File: 1466907371165.jpg (151KB, 735x1037px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 735x1037px

>>33664579

File: avenger3.jpg (45KB, 500x388px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x388px

>>33665805
the only SPAA asset i'm aware of in the US armed forces is the avenger. I've heard of concepts for SPAAG's on M1 chassis but i have no idea how far those concepts went.

>>33665805
M6 Linebackers will be pulled out of storage and reintroduced into service if the need ever arises.

File: syrian shilka.jpg (2MB, 4914x3222px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4914x3222px

>>33664579

>>33666709
>>33666767
Why is the US so hostile towards dedicated short-medium range AA?

File: shilka slat.png (657KB, 718x405px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 718x405px

>>33666790
2

>>33666767
they were converted to normal Bradleys but converting it back wouldn't be hard.

File: shilka slat 2.jpg (92KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x450px

>>33666801
3

File: syrian pantsir s1.jpg (326KB, 903x600px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 903x600px

>>33666813
4

File: syrian strela 1.png (829KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 800x531px

>>33666831
5

>>33666793
The US seems confident in their long range AA systems/air superiority. I have heard some rumblings about bringing American AA doctrine closer to Russia's by beefing up platforms like the avenger but i haven't heard anything specific.

>>33666793

Because the last time any U.S. ground soldier (ignoring friendly fire incidents) was killed by an enemy air attack was in 1953, over 60 years ago.

File: syrian strela 2.png (286KB, 550x394px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 550x394px

>>33666845

>>33666793
Politics and lack of need, US forces receiving a not blue on blue airstrike has not been realistic for a while, the AF considers AA development as a threat to them as it implies that they would fail to secure air superiority

File: 1466272590167.jpg (42KB, 344x344px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 344x344px

>>33666853
>we haven't been hurt by a capability for a long time.
>we don't need to protect against that capability

File: IMG_0150.jpg (692KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 2048x1536px

>>33664579

>>33666867

But anon, we do protect against that capability, which is exactly why air-to-ground strikes against U.S. forces (ignoring friendly fire) are non-existent.

>>33666793
In counter-insurgency warfare, enemy air assets are all but non-existent, so using dedicated anti-air forces is wasteful.

Of the actual aerial threats, missiles (such as the ones Iran would launch at the gulf states) are countered by Patriot systems. High-performance aircraft are countered by our own high-performance aircraft. Threats to ships are countered by the gun and missile systems of those ships.

Any low threats (e.g. helos) will be taken care of by aircraft and/or Stingers.

File: d6e0764f9200c726f7c2e2024cb5c113.jpg (23KB, 650x423px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 650x423px

This is now a Quadruplo thread

File: Naval Gun.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>33664579

>Post neat AA guns

>>33666888
I am memeing but it seems a little weird to depend entirely on gaining air superiority, cumbersome patriot systems plus some MANPADS. In a setting where the airspace is contested and/or patriot batteries are in short supply/are countered, having no intermediate AA solution could create a gap where a redfor with a more robust AA net can exploit AA superiority and possibly turn it in to air superiority. The presence of significant AA on both sides also implies both sides could undertake SEAD missions, which patriot batteries are more vulnerable to relative to more mobile platforms. Luckily most NATO members maintain these kind of indeterminate AA assets and could help smooth over some of these gaps in capability.

File: 1480179798920.jpg (62KB, 688x352px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 688x352px

>>33664579

Every single gun visible in pic-related can be used against aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs

>>33667101
How is that weird? The US military is fully capable of curbstomping any air force in the world.

>>33664579
I just imagine this being used against infrantry.

>>33666853

Well...

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

>>33667139
It's a doctrine that has little redundanc. I agree it's really unlikely America can't establish/maintain air superiority over whatever they're fighting over. I'm literally just concerned with situations where america doesn't have the assets mobilized for full scale air campaigns or the infrastructure can't support these campaigns. Hell given the low replacability of high quality air assets attrition could lead to a strain on air superiority.

>>33667285
>anon says ignoring friendly fire incidents
>posts a friendly fire incident

>>33666790

That guy looks like he enjoys his job in a Mad Max kind of way.

File: China_Gatling_Tank.png (98KB, 415x335px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 415x335px

>>33667143

File: 1491431085837.gif (458KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 256x256px

>>33667338
>implying

>>33666793

Cause we're too busy with the meme of stealth is why. We honestly believe we'd secure air superiority in the opening days of WW3 and keep it. This is all assuming the enemy hasn't some how figured out how to detect you and ram a SAM up your ass. Dangerous thinking if you ask me.

>>33666852

+1 we should definitely be doing this and as quickly as possible.

>>33666863

Yup it's just pride at this point that's holding back any further development of close in anti-air defense. The AF would be afraid of losing budget to an Army lead project to take an M1 Abrams chassis and making it into a capable AA platform.

File: avenger-redux-boeing[1].jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>33666793
Not as much these days. Army finally recognized their deficiency. Most likely they'll move to the new upgraded Avengers as a quick fill in for now.

>>33667591

>I have no idea about what systems are actually in development and I'm just trying to sound smarter that the military, the post

The U.S. military has short-range air defense systems in development that would sit over any kind of lame SPAAG.

>>33667647

I see zero evidence that the Army has created anything even close to what Russia or anyone else has. Until it sees the light of day and isn't some one off dreamed up by a mechanic it doesn't exist.

File: american Roland.jpg (102KB, 696x541px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 696x541px

>>33667634
apparently they're looking to put AIM-9M's and an AA version of the hellfire on avengers with plans to add them to linebacker like systems. They can also go back and integrate the Roland like they had originally planned.

Pic related: American Roland on an M109 chassis

File: abrams SPAAG.jpg (18KB, 606x408px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 606x408px

Abrams SPAAG concept.

File: 570685c4bc2a7.image.jpg (101KB, 1200x886px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1200x886px

>>33667709

>I see zero evidence that the Army has created anything even close to what Russia or anyone else has.

That just means you aren't look for any evidence, you're just looking for an imaginary problem to bitch about.

Say back in the 60s the US looked at the ZU-23 and thought "shit, we need one if those"
What cannon do you guys think they'd have used?

>>33668461
probably 35mm Oerlikons or similiar

>>33668461
Oerlikon 20MMs most likely

>>33666888
Checked

>>33667101
Stop arguing with double trips.

File: 1470444058498.jpg (99KB, 700x495px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x495px

>>33668569
>>33668461
Hell they probably could have used the bushmaster.
>>33668609
>mfw I didn't check em

>>33668461
>>33668569
>>33668721
I could see them adopting a Oerlikon-based system in the early 60s and replacing it with a bushmaster-based system in the 70s

>>33668829

even with 2 or 4 barrels, could you ramp up the rate of fire on a bushmaster high enough to be competitive with a shilka, or even a tunguska?

>>33667101

It is weird and frankly stupid and very overconfident on Americas part. I just hope we wake the hell up and realize that the sooner we fill these gaps the better off we're going to be.

>>33668888
hard to say, stock bushmaster has 200 rpm max, 4x optimally throws 800rpm. The shilka has a combined 3000-4000 rpm. In order to be competitive you'd need to up the bushmasters rof by about 550rpm, i have no idea how feasible that is.

>>33668985
oops, with an 8 hp motor the bushmaster reaches 500 rpm so you'd only have to add 250 rpm but this is assuming you can fit the motors for these guns on a given platform.

>>33668888
>those digits
Yeah, the Shrubmaster would probably be too slow
An alternate cannon design using the bushmaster's 25MM round but running much faster might have been developed in the scenerio that's being posited here, though

>>33666793
They operate under the (correct) assumption that they will have total air-superiority, and therefore SPAAGs are not a priority in development.
I mean, what air force can possibly stand against the US air forces and survive?

>>33669092

The flying saucers from Independence day are the only thing that comes to mind.

>>33667437
Burrets for everyone!

>>33669092

A resurgent Russia and an up and coming China all come to mind. Now if WW3 broke out tomorrow yes we would dominate but if we sit idly by while they build overwhelming numerical superiority we'll be in trouble. If a technology is developed to defeat stealth in parallel we could potentially be in a bad place.

>>33669522
Stealth isn't really a win or lose thing, better stealth makes you harder to see but it never makes you invisible. It's not a single technology that beats stealth, its redundancy and density of radars and other detection methods.

>>33666793
They couldn't get fucking Sarge York to work, the LAD-AD had a GAU of somekind on it but frankly they just don't need it.

>>33666793
Job security for fighter pilots.
>>33666853
>We don't actually need anti-submarine weapons, because the last time an American sailor was killed by an enemy submarine was over 70 years ago.
Your argument is shit. None of the enemies we've faced since the Korean war have even tried more than one or two ground-attack missions, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be way up shit creek if we wound up facing an enemy with decent ground attack capability.

File: thg M247 Sergeant York by thg guy.png (693KB, 1136x3024px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1136x3024px

>>33666793
Because they cant build one.

File: thing.jpg (117KB, 1007x725px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1007x725px

>>33666790
what's the point of the diesel muffler cap looking thing on each barrel?
can you manually retract the reciprocating barrels or push them forward (latch them?) and use it as a dust cover?

>>33669092
What about ground launched cruise missiles?

>>33673391
To not allow water and shit to come inside the barrel.

When you are about to fire they get pulled out of the way (see the metal strings).

>>33673391
You can pull them off the barrels from inside using the wires. They're just dust covers.

>>33667108
well...my peepee is low rather hard

>>33673601
They are more easily shot down from the air then the ground.

>>33668461
Probably oerlikon 25MM'S

>>33673349

I always thought this thing looked damn cool. It got screwed over by the decision to use F-16 radar, which was unable to deal with ground clutter at all. You can even see it in that video. At 0:30 the York locks onto a piece of debris that it is traveling next to, which probably wasn't intentional.

File: 1490929989156.jpg (62KB, 324x557px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 324x557px

>>33664579
>60rds of 37mm per second
shid

>>33666813
>>33666801

What are the balls on chains for?

File: 1397944331569.jpg (841KB, 1700x1309px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 1700x1309px

>>33674807
I believe they are placed to cover weak spots against rockets / grenades,HEAT etc.

Incoming projectiles will hopefully hit the weighted chains detonating prior to impact.

It is pretty much the same idea as the cage armor you see on the side of armored vehicles.

>>33667437
CHINA WILL GROW LARGER

>>33674807
>>33675226

pretty much what the first reply said, but they are actually there to disrupt the path of rockets, not really detonate them.
If an RPG hits the chain it might flip sideways and cause the warhead to not hit head on, causing the explosion to either not occur, or not cause a problem to your armor.

>>33675387
Is it me or do the Gepard and Marksman SPAAG systems look really, really, really similar

>>33668461

Isn't that what the M163 is?

>>33676336

Uses the same gun and designed by the same company so... not very surprising.

The Type 87 and the Gepard are particularly hilarious, the nips hire the same company that designed the gepard to... come up with the exact same product, only more expensive.

>>33676361
That's the American answer to the ZSU SPAAG The guy was asking about something like the towed ZU-23, of Technical fame

>>33674195
>I always thought this thing looked damn cool. It got screwed over by the decision to use F-16 radar, which was unable to deal with ground clutter at all.
I don't think that was the problem. The problem was their unrealistic goal of being able to lock and shoot hovering targets with a pulse-doppler radar. You need your target to present radial velocity in order for doppler filtering to help discern the target from clutter and chaff.

Hovering targets can be optically-engaged with relative ease anyways. I'd bet you anything that's how Shilkas are operated.

File: D0000609.jpg (200KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1920x1080px

>>33676997
>Hovering targets can be optically-engaged with relative ease anyways
That is pretty much how the luftvärnskanonvagn 90 works pretty much.
The LVKV 90 did away with the fire control radar and get all firing data from IR cameras, laser rangefinders optical tracking and the likes.
The radar on top is surveillance and tracking only, to get the tube pointing in the right direction in time.
It does have the added bonus of not tripping the RWR but it does light up a laser warner if that is present.

>>33675167
>tfw we could've had a american gepard if if wasn't for Ford's and the DoD's fuckery

So, i've always looked at the SPAAG as an under-developed possibility. In most modern combat, the ability to shoot and destroy a MTB isn't really that key.

More likely, your vehicles are going to be facing folks who are holed up in masonry buildings. SPAAG should be a better weapon against that.

And your SPAAG can have weak armor, too. Throw some anti-rpg slats on and call it a day.

All of this seems like a no brainer. But nobody does this, which probably means i'm missing something. What is it?

>>33677427
I don't know, I think you're right. More dakka seems to be the answer 99% of the time, and what has more dakka than a SPAAG?

>>33677427
Soviet shilka for ground targets only

>>33666793
Because US doctrine dictates that we fight with air superiority.

>>33677427
>What is it?

Autocannons do it, and waste less ammo. Same reason why we don't standard issue miniguns on our tanks. Fire rate is way to high.

That said, spaags are making a comeback because they are great for rockets, arty, morters, that sort of thing.

>>33677427
Some sort of modified Bushmaster for mounting on a humvee or oversized tripod for FOB defense would provide that capacity without the need for dedicated armored vehicles

>>33677427

>In most modern combat, the ability to shoot and destroy a MTB isn't really that key.

The ability to destroy people who are hiding behind obstacles is very nice though, and nothing does that better than a 120mm smoothbore. A SPAAG might be able to punch holes in buildings, but a tank can destroy the building itself.

>And your SPAAG can have weak armor, too.

And that's a good thing? An IFV can perform any kind of urban-clearing operation better than a SPAAG can, because it can carry troops, and has better armor. The only advantage that a SPAAG has over an IFV is the capability to engage aircraft.

>>33664579
What vehicle is this?

File: 7453750020_5afab241c1_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1371px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1371px

>>33677427
Because the niche of urban combat were you need more firepower than an IFV can offer, but yet no need for the gun of a MBT, and the protection of a MBT rather than any carried infantry to deploy around in the streets to give you superior awareness is practicaly non existent. There is a reason these things didn't sell.

>>33676997

>I don't think that was the problem.

It most certainly was the problem. The AN/APG-66 was an excellent radar for its day, but it was designed to be used by fighter jets. It was completely incapable of filtering out the sort of ground clutter that a land-based radar needs to deal with.

>>33673391
>>33673615
>>33673617

You can see it in action at 2:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ynTsskKL8g

>>33679691
>Ground clutter
>Somehow a bigger problem for a ground-based look-up radar than an aerial look-down radar
Maybe if you disable the doppler filter in a futile effort to engage stationary targets, sure.

>>33666790
Why is it so hard to find good video of these things firing all four barrels full auto at once?

>>33666793
We got turned off hard when the M247 was shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2jnRexqSrw

Also who needs anti-air when you own the skies lmao or something like that.

>>33680860
The problem is that they want to produce some dedicated AA vehicle, when the role doesn't at all need that

>>33667055
I love how it spits the cases out onto the deck.

File: thinking.png (45KB, 470x138px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 470x138px

>>33667338
>friendly fire
>implying

>>33673332
found one with a museum m42 driving with decent vehicle sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tuscdqONvA

File: 37MM Vulcan Tank.jpg (64KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x480px

>>33664579
Ah I remember Aberdeen Proving Grounds MD Ordinance Museum.

File: many missiles.jpg (78KB, 852x479px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 852x479px

What SPAAG is this?

It has no guns.

>>33682516
Arctic Pantsir.

>>33674807
Teabagging wrecked enemy aircraft after shooting them down.