New Iranian 100mm AA gun

[Chris Werb]

Guideline (SA-2) was no longer in service in 1999. SA-3 and SA-6 were.

 

Sorry, Gainful. My bad!

[Chris Werb]

It's a statement of the obvious, and partial restatement of what others said indirectly on the thread, but calibers as big as 100mm tend not to make sense for single purpose AA because on one hand a small caliber higher ROF gun could get the job done as well or better within its shorter range, and on the other hand at ranges beyond the reach of smaller calibers, the future position of a manuevering fast jet is just too unpredictable to really effectively engage with a conventional unguided projectile, even assuming a proximity or advanced technolgy time fuze (like AHEAD).

 

At least in video I've seen the fast jets and UAVs over Iraq and Afghanistan etc. aren't really manoeuvering. Presumably more modern air weapons and FCS will allow the aircraft to manoeuvre whilst delivering ordnance, but that was often not the case in the past.

[Tony Williams]

'Closed loop' fire control (tracking the shells specifically to correct onto target) is not a feature of any larger caliber AA FCS, AFAIK.

The only cases of closed-loop fire control I know of for certain are Phalanx and Goalkeeper, but there may well be others.

[Sami Jumppanen]

There's a big difference between using remote data to cue a tracking radar and actually launching missiles entirely on linked data. Can NASAMS do the latter?

 

Like having F-18 to point targets with it's radar and to have NASAMS shoot it down? With Link-16 it is suposed to be able to do that. But then again AMRAAM is actively homing missile all it needs is to know where the enemy is and where it is going to be when missile gets there and begins to search the target.

[tankerwanabe]

100mm seems overkill. But I wonder whether these guns can be use in dual role as conventional artillery.

[Marek Tucan]

100mm seems overkill. But I wonder whether these guns can be use in dual role as conventional artillery.

 

Might make sense close to shore, double-acting as a. initial AAA barrage and b. anti-shipping guns.

[Xavier]

I've been wondering for a while how capable (and useful) a up-scaled version of Oto Melara's DART ammunition in 127mm or 155mm would be. It should be able to outperform MANPADS missiles. Not sure if it would be any cheaper though.

[Olof Larsson]

Might make sense close to shore, double-acting as a. initial AAA barrage and b. anti-shipping guns.

 

We used to have a few fixed 10,5cm guns for those roles, but with reversed priorities,

i.e. anti-shipping be the main mission and self defence against aircraft being a secondary mission.

 

 

http://www.batteriarholma.se/Bilder.htm

http://www.batteriarholma.se/images/Digital%20bild%20Arholma%20nora.pdf

http://www.roslagen.se/sv/webb/Turist/Sevart/Museer/Mellersta-Museer/Batteri-Arholma/

http://www.femorefortet.se/Kalla-KA.htm

 

I've been wondering for a while how capable (and useful) a up-scaled version of Oto Melara's DART ammunition in 127mm or 155mm would be. It should be able to outperform MANPADS missiles. Not sure if it would be any cheaper though.

 

I.e. like the 127mm Vulcano.

 

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/development/VULCANO127mm.pdf

 

Even the 76mm DART should be able to match the range of many MANPADS.

[Chris Werb]

We used to have a few fixed 10,5cm guns for those roles, but with reversed priorities,

 

That is a Hell of a lot of engineering effort to go to to end up with something less survivable and less tactically useful than a 105mm armed tank. The only things I can think that the battery offers in comparison is increased ammo capacity and the possibility of linking to radar for operations in reduced visibility - even the latter would be marginal on many occasions given modern TI.

[Olof Larsson]

That is a Hell of a lot of engineering effort to go to to end up with something less survivable and less tactically useful than a 105mm armed tank. The only things I can think that the battery offers in comparison is increased ammo capacity and the possibility of linking to radar for operations in reduced visibility - even the latter would be marginal on many occasions given modern TI.

 

For a modern weapon yes, but our 10,5cm guns were designed 60 years ago,

with the mission (in conjunktion with mobile coastal artillery, the navy and the airforce)

of keeping our coast (and in particular the ports) protected until the army could mobilise.

 

And with the soviet weapons of the time, the only realistic options was nukes or infantry assault.

 

The next fixed coastal artillery gun (12cm M/70) was designed for antishipping and infantry fire-support only,

but offered better protection with the turret alone weighting more then 60 metric tons,

and having an all round protection level comparable to the turret front of contemporary western MBT's

and was quite resistant from close misses from tactical nukes,

(one tactical nuke would not be able to take out more then one gun in the battery)

the most realistic option for disabling them was again getting infantry on top of the individual cupolas

or using nukes to take out the individual turrets.

 

The 10,5cm gun seems to have been based on the contemporary 12cm gun on our Halland class destroyers BTW.

[Tony Williams]

That is a Hell of a lot of engineering effort to go to to end up with something less survivable and less tactically useful than a 105mm armed tank. The only things I can think that the battery offers in comparison is increased ammo capacity and the possibility of linking to radar for operations in reduced visibility - even the latter would be marginal on many occasions given modern TI.

 

The 105mm Swedish coast-defence guns were supplemented by more advanced 120mm ERSTA ones in the late 1980s. These guns are automatic and can sustain a much higher rate of fire than a tank (the barrel is liquid-cooled). HE ballistics are a lot better too - the maximum range is 24-27 km - and the shells were designed to penetrate deep inside a ship before exploding. The last development reported in JAH was an HCER shell with a range of 36 km, although it's not clear whether that made it into service.

 

I'm not sure that these guns would be less survivable than a tank. The only vulnerable bit is the turret, and that's well shielded IIRC. There's no hot engine for IR homers to lock on to.

[Olof Larsson]

The last development reported in JAH was an HCER shell with a range of 36 km, although it's not clear whether that made it into service.

 

Probably a part of the MLU planned after the year 2000.

It was to include smokelaying (or rather water mist) of the battery

to protect from laser-guided munition and fences that could be quickly erected around the turrets

to shred/detonate prematurely incoming ATGM's.

 

I'm not sure that these guns would be less survivable than a tank. The only vulnerable bit is the turret, and that's well shielded IIRC. There's no hot engine for IR homers to lock on to.

 

Yes, the turret was covered with a composite camoflage hood, made to look like a piece of rock.

The hoods had diffent looks depending on where the gun was emplaced, with some having a hood covering the barrel

when the barrel was in the stoved/clamped down position and some were green/brown camoflaged, rather then rockgrey.

 

As far as protection goes the barrel and the turret could be clamped down to the rock

(or concreate foundation for batteries not buildt into the granite rock) to protect the turrets

from the blast and shockwave from a nuclear blast.

 

The weak part as far as protection goes was the lack of EMP-protection.