Jump to content

Us Sp-Aaa Pursuits.


TOW-2

Recommended Posts

So, during the Cold War the USSR and Warsaw Pact had pretty much the fiercest SAM collection ever (and they still seem to). SA5, SA-6, SA7, SA9, SA11, SA13, not to mention the S60, ZSU-57-2 and ZSU23-4-M.

 

The only thing I can find that seems even a little comparable on the NATO side of the table are the Roland, Rapier, Patriot, Chapparal and Vulcan, the last two of which were (compared to their counterparts) somewhat lackluster. The Vulcan and Chapparal lacked integrated tracking radar; the former only had a simple ranging radar.

 

Those particular vehicles were retired, and we got the Linebacker (a Bradley with a 4-box Stinger mount tacked on) and in '89 the Avenger. So what was with that? What doctrinal thinking went in to not having an in-depth air-defense system like the Soviets were purported to? Surely SAM losses and AAA losses in Vietnam taught a lesson about the effectiveness of such systems...?

 

I just want to understand the thinking that led to the US deciding to not develop more assets like that. Did it come down to funding? Was the USAF (as it often seems) afraid of the Army having "too much" air-power or air defense? Was the thinking that US and NATO air power would be enough to stop Soviet/Warsaw Pact air power, such so that AAA was a distant, secondary concern? Surely planners must have realized that NATO airfields would be targeted by NBC and conventional bombardment just for the purpose of removing this threat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There was a wide range of air defense beginning with Redeye/Stinger forward backed by SHORAD with Vulcan-Chapparal as an interim with Roland and Sgt York as the follow-on. As it turned out, neithe Roland nor Sgt York proved out and the aging CVADS were replaced with SP Stinger based alternatives. Mid-range, they just kept improving the HAWK system in both towed and SP versions. Long range was NIKE until replaced by Patriot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I can find that seems even a little comparable on the NATO side of the table are the Roland, Rapier, Patriot, Chapparal and Vulcan, the last two of which were (compared to their counterparts) somewhat lackluster. The Vulcan and Chapparal lacked integrated tracking radar; the former only had a simple ranging radar.

There was also the Gepard used by Germany, Belgium, and Netherlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawk, Gepard, Crotale, various towed machine cannons, AMX-13 DCA. And these are just those from the top of my head. In comparison the soviets had a planned structure for air defence down to the platoon as carrying some Iglas was standard practice in BMP and BTR. Not like NATO that has a pretty splintered air defence with lots of different systems and most countries having gaps in their coverage. The USA seem to mosltly rely on the USAF and air superiority. And the rest of NATO relies on the usa mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm maybe it was a funding issue, but I'm also wondering if Soviet doctrine had anything to do with their SAM/AAA systems and how they were used or allocated to certain unit sizes.

 

Does the USAF have any such "doctrine" for establishing air superiority over a potentially hostile region before committing ground forces? Or at the very least, giving the friendly ground forces plenty of support from the air, both against ground and aerial targets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

 

Part of the problem with the Sgt. York was the M48 hull, though; it couldn't keep up with the M1s and M2s it was supposed to defend. Also: Gepard turret = NIH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much faith the US Army had in the USAF to provide air superiority, but many of their own programs for anti-aircraft systems ended in failure. First was the MIM-46 Mauler which was too ambitious and led to the procurement of the cheaper MIM-72 Chaparral and M163 VADS.

 

Roland 2 was intended to replace the MIM-72 Chaparral but somehow the procurement of it was botched to the point where cost-overruns led to cancellation after only a single unit was equipped with it. Then there was the infamous M247 Sgt. York which only seemed good at failing in a spectacular manner in front of the press. Perhaps if one of the competing designs (or Gepard) was chosen it could have worked, but the M247 wasn't up to the job.

 

Later the MIM-146 ADATS on a M2 hull was judged to be the winner of the FAADS-LOS-H program to provide the US Army with a new short range air defense system. It was well into testing when it was cancelled due to the post Cold War drawdown. In fact it seems the "Linebacker" name later given to the M6 was intended for ADATS.

 

Another US Army effort was focused on increased air-to-air capabilites for helicopters, which is why the AH-64D has all of the software and wiring to use the AIM-92 Stinger on its wingtip hardpoints. The Stinger was supposed to compete against Starstreak for this role but I presume the plan was scrapped sometime in the '90s.

Edited by JW Collins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

We bought ROLAND and fitted it to the M109 SP Arty chassis. The entire development was a disaster with lousy systems integration. Finally to save face and not have another failed ADA program, they fielded one battalion to the New Mexico National Guard in the 1970s. Because of the heavy maintenance load, about 40% of the battalion had to be full-time manning even though they did not have an active mission. The wartime mission was Iceland air base defense. They deactivated the battalion in 1988. We always figured the battalion was a jobs program to keep LULAC happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

 

Part of the problem with the Sgt. York was the M48 hull, though; it couldn't keep up with the M1s and M2s it was supposed to defend. Also: Gepard turret = NIH.

 

Total bullshit, the ADA guns do not require identical mobility to the supported units, only "compatible" mobility. The M109 howitzers and the M113 based SP mortars and command post vehicles couldn't keep up with the M1s and M2s they supported either (nor could the m88 recovery vehicles..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a gun-based AA system it would have to be closer to the M1s and M2s than the artillery and command vehicles which could stay back some ways. Maybe I am mistaken but I recall reading that the M247 ended up several tons heavier than the standard M48A3. So the adequate mobility it may have had on paper was further reduced.

Edited by JW Collins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

We bought ROLAND and fitted it to the M109 SP Arty chassis. The entire development was a disaster with lousy systems integration. Finally to save face and not have another failed ADA program, they fielded one battalion to the New Mexico National Guard in the 1970s. Because of the heavy maintenance load, about 40% of the battalion had to be full-time manning even though they did not have an active mission. The wartime mission was Iceland air base defense. They deactivated the battalion in 1988. We always figured the battalion was a jobs program to keep LULAC happy.

Why was it mounted on tracks? There was a wheeled version of Roland for base defence. The US Army could have bought this system in containers and put on HEMTT or similar. But that would have been too easy I guess.

 


 

Instead of Gepard US Army could have bought Marksman later in the eighties and put on spare M60 or 48 hulls. Or M88 with a different superstructure. NIH but imperial screws at least. ;) Or bought ADATS anyway as it was fully developed already.

 

 

I think in the near future any Army will have a need for AA cannons to shoot down drones. Expending missiles seems a waste of money to me to kill cheap drones. But then Gepard is withdrawn except Romania I think. And no replacement in sight. And ADA skills are lost. *sigh*

 

Maybe reviving and upgrading ADATS and adding a machine cannon? Bradley hulls should be available aplenty. Or on Stryker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe reviving and upgrading ADATS and adding a machine cannon? Bradley hulls should be available aplenty. Or on Stryker?

Make the cannon armament rather impressive and you have an excellent counterpart to the Russian Tunguska.

 

Not too long ago Army ADA was going to get SL-AMRAAM but that too was cancelled in keeping with what seems to be a new tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was it mounted on tracks? There was a wheeled version of Roland for base defence. The US Army could have bought this system in containers and put on HEMTT or similar. But that would have been too easy I guess.

 

ROLAND was intended to be the missile part of SHORAD which was a division support function and in Europe, that meant armored and mech divisions, ergo a tracked chassis.

 

US Army never intended ROLAND for air base defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I always thought the US should have simply purchased Gepard instead of that clusterfu*k that was Sgt York. I read that it was indeed offered, and would have been a simple conversion to fit onto I believe M-48 hulls. Roland could backed these up, and we did end up buying some of those. (Airbase defense?)

 

Part of the problem with the Sgt. York was the M48 hull, though; it couldn't keep up with the M1s and M2s it was supposed to defend. Also: Gepard turret = NIH.

 

Total bullshit, the ADA guns do not require identical mobility to the supported units, only "compatible" mobility. The M109 howitzers and the M113 based SP mortars and command post vehicles couldn't keep up with the M1s and M2s they supported either (nor could the m88 recovery vehicles..

 

 

No to mention the AVLB's based on the M-60 hull, or the M-88, which is originally a M-48 based vehicle no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why was it mounted on tracks? There was a wheeled version of Roland for base defence. The US Army could have bought this system in containers and put on HEMTT or similar. But that would have been too easy I guess.

 

 

ROLAND was intended to be the missile part of SHORAD which was a division support function and in Europe, that meant armored and mech divisions, ergo a tracked chassis.

 

US Army never intended ROLAND for air base defense.

Ah that makes sense. So pretty much the same setup the Bundeswehr had. And as the Army did not have any real use for the single unit equipped with Roland they were planned for Iceland. Hoping that nobody is.going to see the embarrassment, I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt the US also employ Roland on Man trucks in Germany at airbases?

The way I vaguely recall it, the Germans used the Rolands to defend US airbases in Germany. The Roland really did fall victim of taking decades too long to be fielded and when it finally was, found it wasn't any better than contemporary systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Didnt the US also employ Roland on Man trucks in Germany at airbases?

The way I vaguely recall it, the Germans used the Rolands to defend US airbases in Germany. The Roland really did fall victim of taking decades too long to be fielded and when it finally was, found it wasn't any better than contemporary systems.

 

 

I did some googlefooing because I knew I had posted a thread with a link about MAN trucks that had been used by US Military over the years. If I remember correctly it was a site by veterans who served using them. I found the thread, but the link is now dead. I am sure there were photos of Roland equipped MAN trucks which the US had procured just to use at its German bases. I think it was the US Air Force. I found this photo googling some more, but it doesnt mean anything really. One thing that makes me doubt this photo as proof are those registration plates? on the front of the trucks. The link was www.mantrucksusa.com Even more a niche website than this one. http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37998

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y-123 456 license plates are regular Bundeswehr vehicles. With an X are vehicles assigned to NATO staffs and similar special functions. If the photo was in colour there would be a small black-red-gold flag identifiable preceding the Y. (or X respectively)

 

The tactical markings are obviously not USian, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...