/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27667568

[31 / 16 / ?]

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 08:28:00 No.27667568 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27667616 >>27667680 >>27667737 >>27668210

How effective are self-propelled Anti-Air Defense?

Are tanks in a modern army still at risk of getting blow the fuck out from above if their side doesn't have complete air superiority?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 08:38:01 No.27667616 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668116

>>27667568
ADA has never been intended to prevent air forces from doing damage, it's intended to slow down their optempo enough for friendly forces to keep going - either in a2a combat, or overrunning the enemy airfields with tanks (the most efficient way to kill planes is when they're on the ground).

ADA are inherently cheaper than planes, but they're also inherently slower and operating at an energy disadvantage. So barring new technology (like lasers), planes will always be able to out-manuever ADA networks and concentrate their forces.

Missiles tech has gotten better, but smart weapons (like smart cluster EFPs, sensor-fusion 250lb bombs, networking ATGMs, etc) advantage aircraft disproportionately.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Flakpanzer.jpg, 245KiB, 1280x853

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 08:56:27 No.27667680 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27667568

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:09:13 No.27667737 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27667764

>>27667568
They're technically useless.

Russia uses the autocannons on the Pantsir as CIWS to destroy incoming missiles and artillery fire, Pantsir was made to defend S-400 complex, so the S-400 would do the job of engaging aircraft that could destroy the Pantsir.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:13:50 No.27667762 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27667840

Modern Russian SPAAGs are for shredding paratroopers and odd really slow cruise missile
Russians started putting more and more missiles on Tunguska and Pantsir because their guns can't hit jets and fast missiles for shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Buk-M1-2_air_defence_system_in_2 (...).jpg, 2MiB, 2250x1420

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:14:15 No.27667764 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27667886

>>27667737

Self-Propelled Anti-Air Guns are technically useless.

Self-Propelled SAM Systems are still very, very useful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:28:29 No.27667840 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27667762
>Russians started putting more and more missiles on Tunguska and Pantsir because their guns can't hit jets and fast missiles for shit.

Or because missiles are much superior.

Stuff like the Gepard are pretty much sitting ducks.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO U.S._Soldiers_assigned_to_the_12 (...).jpg, 976KiB, 3668x2248

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:35:26 No.27667886 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668019 >>27668765

>>27667764
>Technically Useless.
>Nobody has ever used an attack chopper to kill a tank or support infantry.
The Russians love their SPAAG's because NATO have these.
Doctrine people the answers are in the doctrine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1371157821064.jpg, 465KiB, 1499x997

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 09:56:20 No.27668019 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668116 >>27668250

>>27667886

Russians also have Attack Helicopters, but the Germans, Polish, British, etc. don't have SPAAGs

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:14:39 No.27668116 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668147 >>27668219

>>27667616
But what about platforms such as the AHEAD upgrade that most systems can use...

With AHEAD you can now seriously consider knocking mortar and rockets out the sky with autocannons... low flying planes/helo's are not even a challenge

>>27668019
Germany have the Gepard which will be replaced by the new gen SysFla Boxer (i think)

Poland have the ZSU-23-4MP Biała as well as the PZA Loara

Bongs have Centurion C-RAM

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:19:38 No.27668147 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27668116
>Germany have the Gepard

Not since 2010

>which will be replaced by the new gen SysFla Boxer

Tthe SysFla is current a concept only with almost no chance of actually seeing the light of day

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:30:49 No.27668210 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668317

>>27667568
Guns tend to be more for suppression than actual killing. Don't get me wrong, anti-air artillery could take out any plane if it flew in a straight line. However, planes can turn and as soon as they change course anything you shot at them isn't going to hit. The point is that they have to turn and keep maneuvering to avoid getting shot down.

SAMs are the actual plane killers. Under ideal circumstances you'd only need one missile but then you've got to figure in counter measures. Counter measures are a limited quantity as are missiles so you've got this game between having more missiles or more countermeasures.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PLA PGZ-07 AHEAD and HQ-17 Tor-M (...).jpg, 678KiB, 1500x916

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:32:03 No.27668219 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27668116
AHEAD and other anti-missile ordnance is king. Nowadays, you can basically forget killing the plane/helicopter, which is why all you can hope to do is to shoot down their missiles and have long enough range SAM yourself to force the opponent to remain in stand-off distance, which makes accurate engagement and target discrimination for him harder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:36:19 No.27668250 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27672756

>>27668019
I thought NATO disregarded air defence in favour of total air superiority?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 10:46:56 No.27668317 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668441

>>27668210
Manouvering and kinematics are more important than flare/chaff countermeasures.

A-10s are not as resistant to missiles than F-16s, regardless of if they both carry the same ECM and countermeasure packages.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A-10 Flight.jpg, 512KiB, 1280x850

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 11:09:00 No.27668441 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27668741 >>27671710

>>27668317

LIES

A-10 BEST PLANE

TAKE 10 MISSILES TO THE FACE, NO PROBLEM

LOSE BOTH WINGS, STILL GET HOME FINE

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 11:59:09 No.27668725 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Against high flying planes pretty useless. But not against low flying drones. If the missile you fire costs more than the drone it's supposed to destroy then guns become very relevant again.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1378261363810.jpg, 133KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 12:03:14 No.27668741 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27670913 >>27672256

>>27668441
why are ground attack aircraft so sexy, these and the frogfoot are goat

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 12:08:58 No.27668765 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27667886
Confirmed for truth. Army aviator here. All of us are secretly deep down scared of aa guns

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A-10 road.jpg, 1MiB, 2839x1899

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 17:10:36 No.27670913 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27672308

>>27668741

NotAnonymous

NotAnonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 18:31:29 No.27671710 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27668441
Bureaucracy > A-10.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO junkers-ju-87-g-2-stuka-rudel.jpg, 1MiB, 2223x1080

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 19:28:35 No.27672256 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27672710

>>27668741
Because they don't have to worry about going fast or being stealthy, so the most efficient setup is usually a flying brick with oversized weapons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 19:33:33 No.27672308 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27670913
They would hide the A-10's out in the woods next to the AFB to hide them.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1394221163673.gif, 2MiB, 473x300

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 19:39:12 No.27672373 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27673347

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A1.jpg, 1MiB, 1600x1067

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 20:07:03 No.27672710 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27672256

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 247.jpg, 627KiB, 1500x1000

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 20:10:37 No.27672756 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27674934 >>27677617

>>27668250

No, the Americans disregard SPAAGs because their last attempt to make one was so awful that it traumatize the pentagon to this day.

To this day they still make references to the Sgt York's failure whenever someone in the defense industry starts trying to push for a SPAAG again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 21:16:10 No.27673347 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27672373
faggot cut the gif short

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1415211198241.jpg, 170KiB, 794x732

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2015 23:36:52 No.27674934 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27676032 >>27677746

>>27672756
>Ford's prototype vehicle started demonstrating problems almost immediately. The main concerns had to do with the tracking radar, which demonstrated considerable problems with ground clutter. In testing, it was unable to distinguish between helicopters and trees. When the guns were pointed upward to fire on high-angle targets, the barrels projected into the radar's line of sight and further confused the system.

>In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted. This time it started shooting towards the target, but fired into the ground 300 m in front of the tank. In spite of several attempts to get it working properly, the vehicle never successfully engaged the sample targets.

>One of the early models is reported to have locked onto a latrine fan, mistaking its return for a moving target of low-priority.

>The results were abysmal. Unable to hit drones moving even in a straight line, the tests were later relaxed to hovering ones. The radar proved unable to lock even to this target, as the return was too small. The testers then started adding radar reflectors to the drone to address this "problem", eventually having to add four. The system now tracked the drone, and after firing a lengthy burst of shells the drone was knocked off target. As it flew out of control, the range safety officer had it destroyed by remote control. This was interpreted by the press as an attempt to "fake" the results. From that point on, every test success was written off as faked.

Jesus fucking Christ. Fuck lobbyists, over 4 billion dollars was spend on this piece of shit and Ford couldn't even humor us with hitting a stationary target.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Type 87.jpg, 341KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 01:31:34 No.27676032 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27674934

Yup

Should have just waited around for their allies to make their SPAAGs then bought them.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO M247-sergeant-york-tn1.jpg, 1MiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 06:27:12 No.27677617 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27672756

Despite its failure, I still think the York looks cool as fuck.

It hits that sweet spot of Retro-Futurism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 07:03:14 No.27677746 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27674934
What we need is another high intensity conflict to knock some sense into the military procurement side of shit. The US military-industrial complex is capable of creating some of the most terrifyingly advanced weapons that will likely ever be created, but it needs some actual goddamn competition rather than lobby groups and politics.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches