Just got an idea, did the US consider using Gepard turret in the Sgt York program? And if not, why? Just because new ammo was not desired? And in such a case wouldn't it be cheaper to replace 35mm guns with 40mm? So why not just take the turret and mate it with Abrams chassis?
And was the GAU-8/A or GAU-13/A ever considered for AA purposes? I know it's a big beastie, but a MBT hull can surely mount it, no?

NIH

James is basically right. There were several competing designs, at least one of which used the Gepard turret. Considering that the US Army had expressed this as an urgent requirement, it would have been logical to have selected an already tried and tested system, but they went for an untried design and paid the ultimate price of not getting anything.

I think I recall seeing an old artist's conception of an M48-mounted GAU-8 that was an early concept for DIVADS.

FWIW, this is the Wikipedia entry on DIVADS:



Several companies responded to the DIVADs contest.[7]

Sperry Rand entered a system based on their older Vigilante gun, modified to fire the 35 mm round from the Oerlikon KDA series, widely used in NATO in the anti-aircraft role.[8] The gun could be fired at 3,000 rounds per minute for anti-aircraft use, or 180 rounds per minute for use against ground targets, fed from a 1,464 round magazine. The aluminium turret was topped by two radars and an IFF system, all from Sperry.

General Electric entered a version with a small turret mounting their 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger cannon from the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It included a single search/track radar adapted from the earlier FAAR, although they later suggested an improved system.

Raytheon proposed using the turret from the Dutch version of the German Gepard flakpanzer. Most of the turret remained the same as the original Gepard, including the twin 35 mm Oerlikon KDA cannons, but used Hollandse Signaalapparaten radars and an Oerlikon Contraves fire-control computer. Raytheon demonstrated that the turret, although designed for the Leopard 1, could be mounted on the M48 with some adaptation.


General Dynamics' DIVAD entry.General Dynamics' entry also mounted twin Oerlikon KDA cannons, but mounted them side-by-side in a new aluminum turret, as opposed to either side of the turret as in the Gepard. They could be fired in either the automatic or semiautomatic mode, and their combined rate of fire was 1,100 rounds per minute from a 600 round magazine. The radar and fire control systems were derived from their Phalanx CIWS system, with the tracking radar mounted on the front of the turret, beside the guns, and the search radar on top. The turret also included independently stabilized optical sights and a laser range finder for manual engagements.[7]

Ford Aerospace's entry was based around the Bofors 40 mm L/70 cannons, twin-mounted in the center of the turret in a fashion similar to the General Dynamics entry. The relatively large and boxy turret also mounted separate long-range search and short-range tracking radars on top. The radars were mounted on booms to give them a clear view of the sky, and both had the ability to be folded down to reduce the vehicle's height. The tracking radar was a modified version of the Westinghouse AN/APG-66 from the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Like the GD entry, it also mounted a complete optical sighting and ranging system.[7]

Some critics claim that Ford's use of the 40 mm Bofors appears to have been a business decision, not a technical one. While the 35 mm round was already a widely accepted NATO standard and was technically well respected, Ford had a marketing agreement with Bofors. As Gregg Easterbrook later reported:

Immediately the lobbying began. Ford had a marketing agreement with the Swedish firm Bofors, a maker of 40-mm but not 35-mm cannons; while Ford could have switched to a 35-mm weapon for DIVAD, the potential profits from a 40-mm weapon were higher. Department of Defense lawyers, the Army pleading to Congress, had advised that specifying the caliber DIVAD's gun would be 'anti-competitive' and could lead to lawsuits-'the most ludicrous excuse I've ever heard' a high-ranking Pentagon official had told me.

When the final DIVAD requirements were issued they called for a gun 'in the 30-mm to 40-mm range'.[9]
However, the Bofors 40 mm Flak series of cannon have worldwide popularity, which brings ready availability of ammunition in any theater of operations. In addition, FACC had developed a proximity-sensing round for the 40 mm, which increased probability of a kill, and the 40 mm shell carried either a greater explosive charge or higher deadweight mass than the smaller anti-aircraft platforms, thus were more effective against a wider range of targets. These factors would be important in the primary scenario for which the DIVAD was to be deployed, that being the large-theater land operations of a third World War, NATO v. the Warsaw Pact.

I'm surprised that the GAU-8 never did find its way to an AA chassis. I'm assuming that ammo storage and/or accessibility had something to do with that, but the GAU-8 still seems like it would have been a fearsome weapon.


Shot

I think it (and the rest for that matter) would have made great ground support weapons too!




-K

Could you imagine having said beastie in the forward-support role! <drooling>

Pretty capable weapon, but you would need significant space for ammo storage. The A-10's basic load of 1150 rounds takes up two full CNU-332 containers and weighs around 2300 pounds. Of course, I would imagine that issue had already been examined.

As envisaged, it would have been very vulnerable in that role to its tall/large silhouette and thin armor.

However if it had worked, it would have freed up a large number of M-163 Vulcans for that role, perhaps for light and airborne units (don't call me Sparky).

Mind you, Roland wasnt built in the states either, or rapier, and the Pentagon ended up paying for a number of those for West Germany to use defending US bases. Did the same with Rapier in the UK as I recall.

Im frankly amazed, not so much by the AA installation which had proven technology if basically flawed in integration, that they put the whole thing on a old chassis that was unable to keep up with an Abrams or a Bradley.

I can't think of an AFV the GAU-8 would fit into, much less the ammo. It's a big weapon.

The speed differential would have been less of a problem operationally than theoretically. In contact or travelling, the lead formations they would have been covering would have been moving tactically (behind the scouts or by bounding overwach, etc) which would be much less than the M1 and M2's max speeds.

If nothing else, they could catch up when the M1s had to keep stopping to refuel.

What ground targets would a GAU-8 be used against that a 25mm Chain Gun couldn't deal with itself?

Anything?

The big gun could more effectively chew up heavy reinforced buildings that would provide cover from 25mm fire, and the higher volumn of fire would threaten even an MBT with much more chance of "golden BB" hits.

pictures from two versions of Divad

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...c=2362.msg20767

Wonder if the A-10's ammo would have been used or some new type of round developed?

New types most definately (gotta spread that defense money around to everyone's districts ya know). Probably some kind of Fragmenting HE as opposed to the GAU-8s DU API et al designed for AT work.

And if it had gotten into service, today we would probably see it with some of the gee whiz miniaturized proximity and programmed detonating fuze technology.

Ultimate price is a bit of an exaggeration. They just didn't have the capability, which it turned out wasn't necessary anyway.

When was the last time an American soldier was killed by enemy air action? Korea?

IOW let's prepare for last war?

More like prepare for the most likely "war" to happen.

Relying purely on your own air force for air defense makes for a single point of failure and is not healthy.

In its current sprawled out and "expeditionary" mode, it is conceivable that deployed US forces could find themselves without the benefit of air superiority for periods of time.

1990 when the 82nd was thrown out as a "line in the sand" is an example. If the Iraqi Army had gone full tilt into SA, US ADA would have found itself quite busy for a while.

Then have a look at say Georgian conflict - Georgian AF, though having no means to fight for air, managed to mount air strikes. They did not hit much, but the strikes were performed.
Lebanon, 2006, proved that even guerilla force may employ aerial warfare in form of drones.
Etc. So underestimating weak enemies might lead to casaulties. Needless casaulties. And if the situation around NorKor flares up. the US troops there will have a helluva time with limited air cover.

It did, sortof. The Goalkeeper shipborne CIWS uses GAU-8/A.

Armoured AAA gun systems are GREAT for shooting up dismounts.

Just ask the Israelis. They took the radar out of their M163s in order to carry more ammo. It was apparently useful for anti-sniper work, course it pissed off the Lebanese.

Sovs did the same with their shilkas. Though I think they still proved to be a bit vulnerable to RPGs.

Relying on your air force is the only sane option. Tactical AA units are for "leakers". Even in the most successful case of integrated AA defense, once the Israelis figured out that the SA-6 was a real threat and that it had to be countered, close air support and air interdiction were reastablished within a few days, even with all of the tactical AA the Egyptians and Syrians had in their ground units. Or take for example the Iraqi army in 1991, which had AAA and missiles coming out its ass. How'd that work out for them?

I didn't say anything like that and this is a discussion about a weapons program that failed in the 1970s. What could it possibly have to do with preparing for the last war, which is a present tense question? To me, the ultimate failure of a weapons system occurs when that system fails to work as intended and casualties are taken as a result. Sgt. York, as a system, never came close to that point--no production, no fielding, no opportunity to fulfill its role.

I do agree with Tony on this, however. US forces are designed to operate with near-total control of the air. How many wars have been won without air superiority? Better to put the resources into maintaining that which is key rather than into preparing for that which leads to failure.

One place I would like to see some work done is in the field of small-scale AA. How are our troops supposed to deal with things such as two meter RPVs, which are big enough to stay out of small arms range and too small to be engaged by systems intended for full-scale helicopters and airplanes?

This thread has brought to mind a train of thought I was having about the Sgt York.

Given that the system was based on surplus M48 chassis and given that these had so much lower performance than the M1 and I would guess the M2 etc.

What would have been necessary to allow the turret to be transfered to an M1 chassis. Was the turret itself self contained and could just be "plugged in" to the chassis or would modifications be necessary to the chassis - were the turret rings the same size and is the chassis of the M deep enough to take whatever turret basket the turret has.

Also another question - is there a maximum caliber for a Gatling type gun I suppose I am asking could a 40mm version have been developed.

Regards

Didn't need to be that mobile. It was a division level weapon system that only needed to keep up with a brigade rate of advance, which was constrained by much less mobile vehicles.

The major problem wasn't with the vehicle or the gun system. It was with integrating the radar - the same used in a F16 - into the turret. The radar was never integrated correctly and that was the end of the program.

Not to sound like a smartass, but what would have been necessary? Excess M1 hulls. Those weren't plentiful in the 1970s and sure weren't projected to be plentiful anytime soon.

But there were pleny of excess M48 hulls and hence you have an available chassis in large enough numbers for fieldings to mechanized and armored divisions.

Plus a fairly good parts supply and maintenance background on those vehicles. Which nicely fit in with the whole off the shelf, quick fielding concept.

It was mentioned in a thread here on this very subject a few years back, one of hurdles was an unreasonable expectation for Sgt York to engage targets far beyond the maximum range of both 35mm Oerlikon and the Bofors 40 mm cannons.

True but the US relies exclusively upon the USAF for tactical AD except for the token Stinger or two.
But took a pretty steep cost to achieve. Actually the flip side of this same conflict reinforces my point. Even with air dominance, the IDF couldn't prevent all Egyptian air strikes.

Since all Coalitian AC losses were due to Iraqi ADA, about as well as they could expect.

True but the US relies exclusively upon the USAF for tactical AD except for the token Stinger or two.
But took a pretty steep cost to achieve. Actually the flip side of this same conflict reinforces my point. Even with air dominance, the IDF couldn't prevent all Egyptian air strikes.

Since all Coalitian AC losses were due to Iraqi ADA, about as well as they could expect.

Well, they made a 37mm version, the Vigilante (see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RED%20QUEEN.htm). This is a photo from my article:



This second photo shows the massive ammunition drum needed to feed the beast:



As a matter of fact, a land-based AA system based on the GAU-8/A is now available. The photo below is from this site: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Div-ADS...#mozTocId541017

The origin of this Chinese LD-2000 is a bit convoluted. France developed their own Goalkeeper-type naval CIWS around the GAU-8/A, called SAMOS. They didn't adopt it, but an astonishingly similar Chinese Navy CIWS appeared afterwards, the Type 730. This was then mounted on a truck as shown below. AFAIK the gun is a straight copy of the GAU-8/A.

Honestly, canyou envission a situation where the US would get involved and *didn't* have complete air superiorit? I admit, a few more tactical gun and short range missile systems would be nice, but outside of cruise missiles and balistic missiles, its just not realistic to expect the US public to back a sistuation where they're troops are being bombed without the cover of friendly air, assuming some country could muster that kind of air cover. Yes drones and helicopters can always pop up. And M-1's and brads can shoot back, in a limited way. I think the US need not worry about SAMs short of stingers, AAA, and anti ballistic missiles. One hopes the F-22 and its ilk makes anything in between unnecessary, given the price. Not at ALL a model for any other nation, let me asure you...

There could always be some sort of pearl harbour like scenario in the future, especially as unit numbers go down and down...

Chew up a building? Cheaper to put several HE rounds into each window. The "golden BB' is just wishfull thinking. MBTs being hit like that will return fire and destroy the GAU-8 vehicle.

Dumb question, what would a barrage of 35mm or 40mm fire do to a main gun on a tank, provided they actually hit the barrel?

The proper role for mobile gun systems in the contemporary US military is C-RAM. As such, 35mm with AHEAD ammunition is preferred. S/F.....Ken M

Not at all a model for the US either. How about a sudden flare-up in Koreas? It takes time to send in F-22s and NorKor MiGs might not pose threat to USAF, but loaded with bombs and utilising the initial period of Chaos... How woud the US public react to significant casaulties in a single day? And bear in mind that even when the Raptors arrive, Korea is not a flat desert. Look up how "easy" it was to destroy YuAF in 1999. Sure, they did not make any strikes at US troops - but just because there was no ground fighting. They were capable of mounting strikes over Kosovo.
Or if say Iraqi or Afghani insurgents get foreign expertise (from Hezbollah and Iran) and start using attack drones? Not every potential enemy is Iraq and even mudhut dwellers learn new tricks.

Go look up the Israeli experience with using 20mm AA weapons in urban direct fire.



Only if its sights haven't been wrecked. Yeah the target's wingman will get the AA vehicle, but a good burst of 30mm AP will ruin a tank's day, inop sights, broken track, starting fires, etc. From the side or rear, it has a good chance of knocking it out completely.

But is trading AA vehicles 1 for 1 for tanks a good thing?

No, but it's better risking loss of AA vehicle by having it vs. having none and relying solely on another service branch.

Less of an issue now seeing as the the ROK has taken over forward deployment along the DMZ (save for the token force of MPs at Panjumon, of course). Eighth Army is pretty much a hollow shell with the only permanent unit being one brigade combat team. The HQ will also be moved further south fairly soon.

For their part, the ROKA has begun purchasing 30mm SPAA in addition to their MANPADs. They apparently don't see the need to invest in medium and high level air defense like the Soviet model. Instead, they put the money into their air force.



Doubtful there would be too many for reasons I illustrated. The biggest threat to the ROK forces along the DMZ would actually come from artillery bombardment. Forces in the rear might be susceptible of attack by NKPA special forces units prior to moving to the front, and maybe some long range artillery directed at anyone in the vacinity of Seoul. AD isn't going to stop any of that, and might actually be more of a liability. Any airborne pre-emtive attack against US forces would involve a fairly deep strike mission undertaken by the NKAF that would have to catch the USAF completely off-guard. I'm not even sure they have the capacity with what aircraft they have.

As for getting planes into the AOO, that's a LOT easier and quicker than reinforcing the ground component. I much rather lay be bets on sending F-22s and helicopters than a shipload of tanks.

- John

Not exactly. It relies on the USAF and any available allied AFs to gain and maintain aire supremacy. Then tactical air defense becomes a moot point. I believe they call it an efficient division of labor.

Nuisance level enemy air activity doesn't justify major expenditures on tactical air defense.



Exactly--nowhere near well enough to justify relying on air defense for anything.

That other service branch has exactly two fundamental missions:

1. Blow the crap out of the enemy where he can be found.
2. Gain and maintain air supremacy so that #1 can be accomplished and the enemy can't accomplish #1 on you.

If you can't rely on that service to do its main job, what's the point?

Modern war cannot be won without command of the air. Making plans on any other basis is foolishness.